THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 

GIFT  OF 

JOHN  PHILLIPS 
DOROTHY  G.  PHILLIPS 


OF    THE 


California  Legislature 


OF 


1913 


BY 

FRANKLIN    HIGHBORN 


The  Constitution  says  that  private  property 
shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use  without 
just  compensation.  If  I  had  my  way,  public 
property  should  not  be  taken  for  private  use 
without  just  compensation." 

FRANCIS  J.  HENEY. 


COPYRIGHT,    1913 

by 
FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN 


San    Francisco 

Press  of  The  James  H.  Barry  Company 
1913 


FRANKLIN  HICHBORN'S 

REVIEWS  OF  THE  CALIFORNIA 
LEGISLATURE 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909  -  -  $1.25 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911  -  -  1.50 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913  -  -  1.50 


CONTENTS 


Chapter 


Page 


I.  The  People's  Checks  upon  the  1913  Leg- 
islature       11 

II.     Organization    21 

III.  Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 41 

IV.  California's  Taxation  Problem 53 

V.     A  Problem  that  was  not  solved 71 

VI.  1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure.  ...   79 

VII.     The  Constitutional  Recess 106 

VIII.     The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 115 

IX.     The  Conservation  Bill 137 

X.     The  Fight  in  the  Assembly 151 

XI.     Conservation  Bill  Passes  Assembly 160 

XII.     Conservation  Bill  in  Senate 165 

XIII.  Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 174 

XIV.  The  Insurance  Bills 188 

^XV^  Defeat  of  the  Kehoe  Rating  Schedule  Bill. 202 

C     CXYJ^The  Alien  Land  Bills 213 

_O       XVII.     The  Exposition's  Last  Stand 227 

XVIII.  Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill.  . .  .236 

XIX.     The  Coming  of  Bryan 248 

CXX?)  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 260 

Q          XXL    The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills 275 

XXII.     The  Moral  Issues 284 

Q.       XXIII.     The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 296 

5        XXIV.     The  Prize-Fight  Bills .310 

XXV.     The  Redlight  Abatement  Act 320 

XXVI.     The  Beban  Resolution 329 

XXVII.  Passage  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  Act.  .337 


Chapter                                                                           Page 
XXVIII.     The  Whirlwind  Finish 345 

(a)  Workmen's  Compensation  Act 347 

(b)  The  "Blue  Sky"  Measure 349 

(c)  "Weights  and  Measures"  Bill 350 

(d)  The  Minimum  Wage  Bill 350 

(e)  The  Civil  Service  Measure 352 

( f )  Non-Partisan  County  Elections 353 

XXIX.     Conclusion — Seeking    Remedies 354 

APPENDIX. 

Resolutions  of  Protest  of  Panama-Pacific  Exposi- 
tion   Company    i 

Governor  Johnson's  reply  to  Secretary  Bryan ii 

Bryan's  Farewell  to  the  Legislature vi 

Senator  Gates'  Farewell  to  Bryan ix 

KEYS  TO  TABLES  OF  VOTES xi 

Table         I.     Senate  Votes  on  Progressive  Policies,    xii 

Table        II.     Assembly  Votes  on  Progressive  Poli- 
cies       xiii 

Table      III.     Senate    Votes    on    So-Called    Moral 

Issues   xiv 

Table      IV.     Assembly  Votes  on  So-Called  Moral 

Issues    xv 

Table        V.     Senate  Votes  on  Labor  Issues xvi 

Table      VI.     Assembly  Votes  on  Labor  Issues ....  xviii 

Table    VII.     Senate   Votes   on    Women-Supported 

Policies    xx 

Table  VIII.     Assembly  Votes  on  Women-Support- 
ed Policies   .  .  xxi 


PREFACE. 

In  writing  the  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature 
of  1913,"  the  attempt  has  been  made,  in  addition  to  pre- 
senting the  records  of  Senators  and  Assemblymen  on 
certain  important  issues : 

(1)  To  show  the  weaknesses  of  the  present  legis- 
lative system; 

(2)  To  show  the  lobby  as  it  is;  its  power,  equip- 
ment,   influence    and — most    important    of    all — what   it 
represents. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  deal  with  all  the 
important  subjects  considered  during  the  session.  A 
better  idea  of  the  Legislature's  record,  the  conditions 
under  which  it  worked  and  the  governing  influences, 
can  be  had  by  thorough  consideration  of  a  few  typical 
measures,  than  by  brief  and  necessarily  incomplete 
treatment  of  a  considerable  number.  This  view  gov- 
erned the  preparation  of  the  Stories  of  the  1909  and 
the  1911  sessions.  It  has  been  followed  in  writing  the 
Story  of  the  Session  of  1913. 

The  tables  of  legislative  votes  have,  so  far  as  possi- 
ble, been  arranged  to  show  at  a  glance  how  each  mem- 
ber stood  on  given  groups  of  measures.  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  all  the  votes  on  all  the  bills  are  included 
in  these  tables.  But  for  the  tables  it  is  claimed  that 
the  bills  included  are  typical  of  their  group,  are  im- 
portant measures  of  the  group  in  which  they  appear, 
and  that  they  give  fair  indication,  so  far  as  the  record 
can  show,  of  the  attitude  of  the  several  members. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  estimate  the  several 


records.  That  is  left  to  the  reader.  If  the  reader  is 
a  Progressive  of  either  party,  he  will,  of  course,  regard 
records  showing  a  large  percentage  of  votes  for  Pro- 
gressive policies  as  a  good  record.  The  Reactionary  of 
either  party  will  naturally  take  the  contrary  view.  Of 
the  tables  dealing  with  votes  on  issues  advocated  by 
representatives  of  Labor,  what  may  be  regarded  by  the 
wage  earner  as  a  very  good  record,  will  be  looked 
upon  as  quite  the  reverse  by  the  exploiter  of  labor. 
The  reader  who  would  strengthen  society  by  the  abate- 
ment of  the  social  evil,  and  the  elimination  of  saloon 
and  gambling  establishment  will  take  a  view  of  the 
records  on  the  so-called  moral  issues  different  from 
that  taken  by  the  exploiter  and  beneficiary  of  vice 
conditions. 

Readers  of  the  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature 
of  1909"  cannot  but  note  the  change  which  has  come  in 
the  Legislature.  Machine-control,  such  as  governed  at 
the  1909  session,  was  unknown  at  the  session  of  1913. 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  rule  of  the  machine  which  once 
prevailed  will  ever  again  be  known  in  California.  Be- 
cause of  the  triumph  of  the  Progressives  under  the 
leadership  of  Hiram  W.  Johnson  at  the  1910  elections, 
The  People  of  California  now  have  the  Initiative,  the 
Referendum  and  the  Recall,  the  enfranchisement  of 
women,  a  practical  Direct  Primary,  and  a  practical 
Australian  ballot. 

These  gains  have  worked  a  political  revolution  in 
California.  They  made  the  1913  legislative  session 
different  from  any  other  ever  held  in  this  State. 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  baneful  activities  of 
special-privilege-seeking  interests  have  been  abandoned. 
On  the  contrary,  the  old-time  beneficiaries  of  the  once 


dominant  machine  are  quite  as  active  as  ever,  but  they 
have  adapted  themselves  to  the  new  conditions.  They 
are  even  seeking  to  employ  the  safeguards  of  direct 
legislation  to  their'  own  ends. 

Thus  we  find  the  racetrack  gamblers  at  the  last 
general  election  resorting  to  the  Initiative  to  restore 
racetrack  gambling  in  California.  But  we  find,  also, 
as  most  encouraging  indication  of  enlightened  public 
interest,  the  electors  rejecting  the  gamblers'  bill  with 
a  majority  against  it  of  over  203,000. 

We  find  this  year  the  beneficiaries  of  vice  exploita- 
tion resorting  to  the  Referendum  to  prevent  the  Red- 
light  Abatement  act  going  into  effect;  and  the  ex- 
ploiters of  the  water  resources  of  the  State  employing 
the  same  power  to  defeat  the  Water  Conservation  bill. 

We  find  San  Francisco  tenderloin  interests  threaten- 
ing Senator  E.  E.  Grant  with  the  Recall,  because 
Senator  Grant  advocated  in  the  Legislature  the  passage 
of  measures  which  threaten  investments  in  vice  ex- 
ploitation. 

And,  finally,  we  find  the  "interests"  which  controlled 
the  old-time  machine,  taking  advantage  of  the  legisla- 
tive recess — which  was  intended  as  a  weapon  of  The 
People  against  such  "interests" — to  mislead  the  public 
regarding  pending  legislation.  And,  because  of  this 
misrepresentation,  we  find  well-intentioned  but  misin- 
formed constituents  appealing  to  their  representatives 
in  Senate  and  Assembly  to  defeat  measures  which  for 
the  general  good  should  be  enacted. 

Incidental  to  the  adaptation  of  the  agents  of  the 
"interests"  to  the  changed  conditions,  have  come  the 
"new"  lobbyists,  who  take  the  places  largely  of  the 
deposed  bosses.  These  have  "new"  schemes,  "new" 


plans  for  "educating"  The  People,  "new"  methods  of 
"convincing"  legislators. 

If  this  volume  gives  some  insight  into  the  "new" 
methods  employed  by  the  "interests"  to  defeat  the  pur- 
pose of  The  People,  and  indicates  the  weak  features  of 
the  present  legislative  plan,  of  which  the  agents  of  the 
"interests,"  under  the  new  order,  are  taking  advantage, 
the  chief  purposes  which  governed  the  preparation  of 
the  book  for  the  press  will  have  been  realized. 

FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN. 
Santa  Clara,  Calif.,  October  31,  1913. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  PEOPLE'S  CHECKS  UPON  THE  1913  LEGISLATURE. 

The  1913  session  of  the  California  Legislature  was 
the  first  to  convene  under  the  new  constitutional  pro- 
visions governing  legislative  gatherings  which  had  been 
submitted  to  the  electors  by  the  1911  Legislature,  and 
ratified  at  the  polls,  October  10th  of  that  year.  No 
California  Legislature — probably  no  legislative  body — 
had  ever  assembled  under  the  same  conditions. 

No  act  of  the  session,  except  in  the  case  of  jealously 
guarded  emergency  measures,  could,  under  the  new  ref- 
erendum provision  of  the  Constitution,  become  a  law 
until  ninety  days  after  the  Legislature  had  adjourned. 
In  the  event  of  the  Referendum  being  invoked  against 
an  Act,  it  could  not  become  a  law  until  sanctioned  by 
a  majority  of  those  voting  at  a  State-wide  election.1 

Of  more  direct  effect  upon  the  Legislature  was  the 
new  Constitutional  provision  for  the  legislative  recess.2 

The  change  provides  that  regular  sessions  shall  con- 
tinue after  convening  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  thirty 
days.  A  recess  for  not  less  than  thirty  days  is  then 
made  obligatory.  On  the  reassembling  of  the  Legis- 
lature, the  introduction  of  no  bill  in  either  House  is 


1  See  Article  IV,  Section  1,  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, as  amended  October  10,  1911.     This  check  had  been  upon   the 
extraordinary   legislative   session  which   had   convened    in   Novem- 
ber,   1911,    but    the    1913    session   was    the   first   regular   session    at 
which  the  referendum  provision  governed. 

2  See  Article  IV,   Section  2,   Constitution   of  the   State  of  Cali- 
fornia,  ratified  October  10,  1911. 


12        Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature 

permitted,  without  the  consent  of  three-fourths  of  the 
members  of  the  House  in  which  the  introduction  is 
sought,  and,  even  with  the  three-fourths  consent,  no 
member  is  permitted  to  introduce  more  than  two  bills. 

The  object  of  this  provision  is  to  give  the  citizens 
of  the  State  opportunity  to  examine  measures  under 
consideration  in  the  Legislature.  In  theory,  the  bills 
will  be  introduced  during  the  first  part  of  the  session. 
During  the  legislative  recess  of  not  less  than  thirty  days, 
the  citizens  will  not  only  have  opportunity  to  inform 
themselves  on  pending  legislation,  but  will  be  able  to 
consult  with  their  State  Senator  and  Assemblyman — 
who  will  be  able  to  return  home  from  the  State  Capital 
during  the  recess — regarding  any  and  all  measures. 
How  well  this  worked  in  practice  the  sequel  will  show. 

When  this  provision  had  been  under  consideration 
at  the  1911  session,  the  understanding  was  that  no  bills 
would  be  acted  upon  during  the  pre-recess  session. 
But  this  restriction  is  not  definitely  made.  There  is, 
contrary  to  general  opinion,  nothing  in  the  provision  to 
prevent  the  Legislature,  previous  to  the  legislative 
recess,  passing  upon  any  or  all  bills  that  may  be  in- 
troduced. 

Another  thing,  which  led  to  much  confusion  during 
the  first  half  of  the  session,  was  the  change,  under  the 
power  which  The  People  had  reserved  to  initiate  laws, 
in  the  enacting  clauses  of  legislative  measures. 

Before  the  adoption  of  the  Initiative  Amendment  in 
1911,  the  power  to  initiate  laws  did  not  repose  directly 
in  The  People.  The  State  Constitution  provided  every 
measure  should  contain  an  enacting  clause  to  read : 


Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature        13 

"The  People  of  the  State  of  California,  represented  in 
Senate  and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows." 

Under  the  Initiative  Amendment  to  the  State  Con- 
stitution, the  Senate  and  Assembly  no  longer  constitute 
the  sole  lawmaking  power.  The  People  themselves 
also  constitute  a  lawmaking  body.  Change  in  the 
enacting  clause  was  therefore  necessary.  This  change 
was  provided  in  the  Initiative  Amendment  of  1911.  The 
changed  enacting  clause  reads  simply,  "The  People  of 
the  State  of  California  do  enact  as  follows." 

Members  of  both  Houses — probably  a  majority  of 
each — when  drawing  their  bills,  instead  of  observing  the 
new  Constitutional  provision,  followed  the  wording  of  the 
Acts  of  previous  legislatures.  As  a  result,  hundreds  of 
bills  were  introduced,  which,  because  of  the  incorrect 
wording  of  the  enacting  clause,  were  worthless.  The  cor- 
rections which  this  necessitated,  and  the  trouble  which 
it  caused  individual  members,  did  more  than  any  other 
one  thing  to  impress  upon  the  members  of  both  Houses 
that  a  new  political  order  prevails  in  California. 

Another  fact  of  prime  importance  which  went  far 
in  influencing  the  work  of  the  1913  session,  was  that 
women  had  participated  on  an  equal  footing  with  men 
in  selecting  the  eighty  Assemblymen  and  twenty  of 
the  forty  Senators.  The  influence  of  this  was  far- 
reaching.  It  led  to  complete  readjustment  of  political 
balances  which  had  governed  at  former  sessions.  One 
important  result  was  the  complete  elimination  of  the 
racetrack  gambling  element  from  consideration  by  legis- 
lators. Up  to  the  1911  session  the  organized  gamblers 
were,  on  a  moral  issue,  the  most  potent  group  at  legis- 
lative sessions.  They  actually  directed  committee  or- 


14       Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature 

ganization  in  their  own  interests.  With  the  institution 
of  women's  suffrage  in  1911,  however,  the  racetrack 
gamblers  were  practically  eliminated  from  California 
politics,  and  organizations  of  women  became,  on  moral 
issues,  the  most  potent  power  in  the  State.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  1913  Legislature  gave  repeated  evidence  of 
appreciating  this  fact  thoroughly.8 

Another  new  consideration  was  the  liability  of  any 
member  who  gave  offense  to  his  constituents,  to  be 
recalled.  The  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  various 
legislative  districts,  with  the  probable  exception  of  the 
districts  controlled  by  the  San  Francisco  tenderloin, 
expect  their  Senators  and  Assemblymen  to  oppose  legis- 
lation which  is  bad,  and  to  support  that  which  is  good. 

The  appreciation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Recall 
unquestionably  stimulated  legislators  to  strive  to  meet 
the  wishes  of  constituents  who  had  in  their  hands  the 
power  of  summary  dismissal.  Then,  too,  the  potency 
of  the  Recall  was  constantly  before  them.  One  mem- 
ber *  had  come  to  the  Legislature  after  having  defeated 
a  hold-over  Senator  in  a  Recall  election. 

Thus,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  State, 
The  People  of  California  had  complete  check  upon  their 
Legislature.  They  had  opportunity  to  examine  and  pass 
upon  the  various  measures  which  might  be  introduced. 
They  had  absolute  veto  power  of  the  measures  which 
might  be  enacted.  In  the  event  of  the  Legislature  fail- 
ing to  enact  any  measure  deemed  desirable,  they  had 


3  Women's     organizations     were     represented     at     Sacramento 
throughout  the  session. 

4  Jones  of   Santa  Clara.     Senator   Jones   has   the   distinction   of 
being  the  first  to  be  selected  at  a  Recall  election,   for  place  in  a 
State  legislative  body. 


Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature        15 

the  power  to  initiate  such  a  law  and  themselves  enact  it 
independent  of  the  Legislature.  If  any  legislator  acted 
contrary  to  the  desires  of  a  majority  of  his  constituents, 
his  constituents  could  immediately  remove  him,  and 
name  a  successor  to  fill  his  unexpired  term. 

The  1913  Legislature  was,  too,  the  first  to  meet 
under  the  new  apportionment  of  legislative  districts. 
For  twenty  years,  eighteen  of  the  eighty  Assemblymen 
and  nine  of  the  forty  State  Senators  had  been  elected 
from  San  Francisco.  This  San  Francisco  delegation — 
numbering  practically  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  Legis- 
lature— had  been  representative  neither  of  the  State  nor 
of  the  city 5  from  which  it  was  elected.  With  rare 

5  The  San  Francisco  delegation,  for  example,  had  session  after 
session  prevented  submission  to  the  electors  of  a  Constitutional 
amendment  providing  for  free  distribution  of  school  text-books. 
In  the  Senate,  fourteen  votes  were  sufficient  to  defeat  such  an 
amendment.  The  nine  votes  from  San  Francisco  were  session 
after  session  cast  against  it.  Five  votes  from  outside  San  Fran- 
cisco, in  addition  to  the  nine  San  Francisco  votes,  were  enough 
to  defeat  it.  Up  to  the  extraordinary  session  of  1911,  these  five 
votes  were  secured.  At  the  1911  extraordinary  session,  however, 
only  three  were  available.  These  with  the  solid  block  of  nine 
negative  San  Francisco  votes  made  only  twelve  against  the 
amendment,  not  enough  for  its  defeat.  The  People  of  California 
were  thus,  in  spite  of  the  San  Francisco  Senators,  given  oppor- 
tunity to  say  whether  or  not  they  wanted  to  supply  their  school 
children  with  free  text-books.  By  overwhelming  vote,  The  People 
decided  for  free  text-books.  The  vote  at  San  Francisco  on  this 
issue  was  significant.  It  was: 

For  free  text-books — 54,041. 

Against  free  text-books — 27,433. 

Thus,  San  Francisco,  whose  legislative  delegation  had  for 
years  successfully  opposed  the  free  text-book  policy,  by  a  vote  of 
three  to  one  declared  for  free  text-books.  In  this  issue,  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  certainly  was  not  representative  of  the  com- 
munity responsible  for  its  presence  at  Sacramento. 

That  the  San  Francisco  delegation  has  not  been  representative 
of  San  Francisco  is  shown  as  significantly  whenever  The  People 
of  that  community  are  given  opportunity  to  express  themselves 
at  the  polls.  For  years,  for  example,  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion was  the  dependable  element  in  the  Legislature  relied  upon 
by  the  racetrack  gambling  supporters  to  prevent  legislation  which 
would  interfere  with  the  gambler's  activities.  Even  when  the 
gamblers  were  finally  beaten  at  the  1909  session,  and  only  seven- 
teen Senators  and  Assemblymen  voted  against  the  Anti-Gambling 
bill,  fifteen  of  the  seventeen  votes  were  from  San  Francisco.  And 
yet,  when  in  1912  The  People  of  San  Francisco  were  given  op- 


1 6       Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature 

exceptions  the  San  Francisco  delegation  had  been  made 
up  of  ignorant  and  for  the  most  part  vicious  men, 
thoroughly  in  accord  with  tenderloin  and  groggery 
interests,  but  completely  out  of  touch  and  sympathy 
with  all  that  make  for  representative  government  and 
wholesome  conditions. 

Such  a  delegation  lent  itself  for  easy  manipulation. 
A  dependable  trading  quantity,  the  public  service  cor- 
poration found  the  San  Francisco  delegation  readily 
adjustable,  under  all  conditions,  to  corporation  plans  and 
purposes.6 

Because  of  the  character  of  this,  the  largest  delega- 
tion in  the  Legislature,  the  corporation-controlled  "Or- 
ganization" was  able  to  prevent  the  passage  of  measures 
to  give  the  electors  free  expression  of  their  purposes  at 
the  polls ;  to  block  the  passage  of  bills  providing  for 
effective  railroad  regulation;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
force  the  enactment  of  laws,  the  passage  of  which  was 


portunity  to  vote  on  this  issue,   that  city  voted  against  gambling. 

The  San  Francisco  vote  was: 

Against   racetrack    gambling 43,962 

For    racetrack    gambling 38,641 

Majority    against    racetrack    gambling 5,321 

The  injustice  of  judging  The  People  of  San  Francisco  by  the 
delegation  which  represents  that  community  in  the  Legislature  is 
apparent. 

6  This  was  true  regardless  of  the  party  or  element  which  was 
responsible  for  the  delegation's  election.  Abe  Ruef  in  his  "con- 
fessions" brings  this  out  sharply.  Ruef  says  of  his  instructions 
to  the  San  Francisco  members  when  he  began  to  send  them  to 
Sacramento  in  the  name  of  Organized  Labor: 

"I  told  the  legislators  to  vote  on  all  labor  questions  and  leg- 
islation directly  involving  labor  interests,  always  for  the  labor 
side.  I  told  them  on  all  other  questions  to  follow  the  Herrin 
program.  Herrin  was  appreciative.  He  expressed  his  sense  of 
obligation." — Abraham  Ruef's  confession,  published  in  San  Fran- 
cisco Bulletin,  July  6,  1912. 


Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature        17 

not   in   the    interest    of   good    government,    wholesome 
moral  conditions,  or  State  progress  and  development.7 

Under  the  legislative  re-apportionment,  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  was  reduced  from  a  representa- 
tion of  eighteen  in  the  Assembly  to  thirteen,  and  from 
a  representation  of  nine  in  the  Senate  to  seven.8 

7  See    "Story   of   the    California    Legislature    of    1909,"    for    the 
attitude    of    the    San    Francisco    delegation    in    the    defeat    of    the 
Stetson   Railroad   Regulation   bill;   in   the   opposition   to    the   Direct 
Primary   bill,    in    the   passage   of   the   Change   of  Venue   bill;    also, 
Chapter  XXIII,   "The  Influence  of  the  San  Francisco  Delegation," 
page  237. 

8  On   the  strict  basis  of  population,    San   Francisco   could   have 
been  allowed  as  many  as   fourteen  Assemblymen  and  seven   Sen- 
ators.     The    politicians    of    that   city,    however,    perfected    a    com- 
bination  to  give   San   Francisco,    regardless   of   Constitutional   pro- 
visions, sixteen  Assemblymen  and  eight  Senators.     (See   "Story  of 
the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"   Chapter  XXIV,    "Reapportion- 
ment,"    page   284.)      The   opposition   of    the    country   districts    pre- 
vented  this.     Because   of   the   united  stand   of   the   country  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly,    San  Francisco's   plan   was   blocked,    but  so 
strong   was   the   opposition    to   the   country   members,    that  no    re- 
apportionment   was   possible   at   the   regular   1911    session. 

The  country  members  were  brought  into  conference  by  a 
call  signed  by  W.  F.  Chandler  of  Fresno.  It  was  as  follows: 

"Without  doubt  the  matter  of  reapportionment  will  remain 
unsettled  at  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature.  There  will  prob- 
ably be  an  extra  session  of  the  Legislature  to  complete  the  un- 
finished business  of  this  session,  which  will  include  the  reap- 
portionment. 

"It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  when  this  question  comes  up 
the  members  from  the  country  districts  be  thoroughly  organized 
to  see  that  justice  is  done  them  in  redistricting  the  State  into 
Assembly  and  Senatorial  districts. 

"You  are  requested  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  country  As- 
semblymen to  meet  in  the  Judiciary  Committee  room,  127,  imme- 
diately after  afternoon  adjournment,  to  confer  and  organize. 

"Don't  fail   to  be   present. 

"W.-  F.    CHANDLER." 

Forty- two  members  of  the  Assembly  attended  the  conference. 
They  were:  J.  F.  Beckett,  W.  F.  Chandler,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  J. 
W.  Stuckenbruck,  W.  B.  Griff eths,  E.  C.  Gaylord,  J.  H.  Guill,  Jr., 
Herbert  W.  Slater,  L.  H.  Wilson,  G.  A.  Jasper,  J.  H.  Tibbetts, 

D.  W.   Mott,   Fred  H.  Hall,   J.   L.  Mendenhall,   Harry  Polsey,   Geo. 

E.  Malone,    R.    L.    Telfer,    L.    D.    Bohnett.    F.    E.    Judson,    D.    R. 
Hayes,    E.    H.    McGowen,    J.    R.    Cronin,    Geo.    H.    Harlan,    G.    W. 
Wyllie,    Chas.    A.    Bliss,    John   C.    March,    Frank   M.    Rutherford,    J. 
B.  Maher,  F.  J.  Walker,  Wm.  R.  Flint,  Clyde  Bishop,  G.  R.  Free- 
man,   G.    H.    Bennick,    W.    R.    Sutherland,    W.    D.    L.    Held,    M.    R. 
Jones,    C.    L.    Preisker,    D.    E.    Williams,    F.    G.    Stevenot,    C.    B 
Rosendale,   Henry  Ward  Brown,   Thos.  F.   Griffln. 

These  forty- two  Assemblymen  signed  the  following  agreement: 

"We,    the    undersigned,    members    of    the    Thirty-ninth    Session 

of   the    California    Legislature   from   the    country   districts,    hereby 


1 8        Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature 

The  result  of  this  reduction  was  shown  from  the 
hour  the  members  of  the  Legislature  began  to  assemble 
at  Sacramento.  Plans  to  organize  the  Assembly  by 
using  the  solid  block  of  Assembly  votes  from  San 
Francisco  as  a  basis  failed.  What  could  be  done  with 
a  block  of  eighteen  San  Francisco  votes  could  not  be 
done  with  a  block  of  thirteen. 

Conditions  in  the  Senate  were  further  improved  by 
the  election  to  that  body  from  San  Francisco  of  Fred  C. 
Gerdes  and  Edwin  E.  Grant.  Gerdes  had,  as  an  Assem- 
blyman, stood  for  good  measures  and  in  opposition  to 
bad,  combating  the  majority  of  his  San  Francisco 
colleagues.  Grant  at  the  1912  election  had  defeated 
Eddie  Wolfe,  the  San  Francisco  legislative  leader. 
Grant's  campaign  had  consisted  principally  of  an  attack 
on  Wolfe's  legislative  record.9  He  had  pledged  himself 
to  a  policy  directly  the  reverse  to  that  which  Wolfe 
had  followed.  Grant  adhered  to  that  policy  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  session. 

The  reduction  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  from 

agree  to  be  bound  by  the  following  resolution  adopted  at  a  meet- 
Ing  held  by  us  the  25th  day  of  March,  1911. 

"Resolved,  that  in  no  case  shall  any  member  of  this  caucus 
or  meeting  pledge  himself  to  stand  by  or  vote  for  any  reappor- 
tionment  bill  not  previously  considered  by  the  members  present 
at  this  meeting  or  caucus.  This  shall  apply  to  a  regular  or 
special  session  of  the  Legislature." 

A  committee  of  seven,  consisting  of  Chandler,  Bishop,  March, 
Bohnett,  Rutherford,  Jasper  and  Guill,  was  appointed  to  draft  a 
legislative  apportionment  bill  to  be  presented  at  the  extraordi- 
nary session  of  the  1911  Legislature  which  was  even  then  con- 
templated. It  was  due  to  this  action,  that  at  the  extraordinary 
session  of  1911,  the  country  districts  were  able  to  meet  success- 
fully the  united  delegations  from  the  large  cities  on  the  reap- 
portionment  issue.  The  plan  of  San  Francisco  politicians  to  se- 
cure greater  legislative  representation  for  that  city  than  its  pop- 
ulation warranted,  failed. 

9  For  Wolfe's   legislative    record,    see    "Story   of   the  California 

Legislature  of  1909,"  and  the  companion  review  of  the  session  of 

1911.  Also,  the  journals  of  the  California  State  Senate  from  1897 
to  1911,  inclusive. 


Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature        19 

nine  to  seven,  and,  by  the  election  of  Gerdes  and  Grant, 
the  further  reduction  of  the  number  of  the  type  which 
San  Francisco  ordinarily  sends  to  the  Senate,  had 
important  bearing  upon  the  work  of  the  Upper  House 
and  of  the  entire  Legislature. 

Not  only  did  the  1913  Legislature  convene  under 
conditions  theretofore  unknown  to  any  California  legis- 
lative body,  but  it  was  called  upon  to  meet  entirely 
new  issues. 

The  issues  which  had  divided  the  "machine"  and 
"anti-machine"  factions  of  previous  legislatures  had 
been,  in  a  large  measure,  met  at  the  1911  session.10 
Railroad  regulation,  bitterly  contested  at  the  1909 " 
session,  was  at  the  time  the  1913  session  convened 
accepted  even  by  its  one-time  opponents  as  a  fixed  State 
policy,  desirable  and  necessary.  The  issue  which  had 
divided  the  1909  session  most  sharply,  election  of 


10  Charles    K.    McClatchy    in    the    Sacramento    Bee    of   April    5, 
1913,  described  the  work  of  the  Progressive  administration  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Never  before  In  the  history  of  California  has  there  been  a 
State  administration  which  promised  so  much  and  which  has  kept 
so  many  of  its  promises. 

"Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  State  has  there  been  a 
time  when  the  throat  of  California  has  been  so  free  from  cor- 
porate clutch. 

"Never  before  in  the  history  of  California  has  there  been  a 
Governor  who  has  honestly,  and  earnestly,  and  faithfully,  and 
conscientiously,  and  pugnaciously  endeavored  to  do  so  much  for 
The  People. 

"And  never  before  in  the  annals  of  this  Golden  State  has 
there  been  a  Governor  who  has  succeeded  in  accomplishing  so 
much. 

"No  need   here   to   recapitulate. 

"The  record  is  before   the   eyes   of  all   men. 

"Big  Business,  the  Interests,  the  Southern  Pacific,  the  grasp- 
ing and  greedy  public-service  corporations,  the  unclean  and  the 
vile  in  politics  and  in  social  and  in  commercial  life — these  no 
longer  dominate  in  the  halls  of  legislation. 

"The  money-changers — the  legions  of  Mammon  and  of  Satan — 
these  have  been  lashed  out  of  the  Temple  of  The  People." 

11  See   "Story  of   the   California  Legislature  of  1909,"   Chapters 
XII  and  XIII. 


2O       Checks  Upon  the  1913  Legislature 

United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  The  People, 
had  been  settled  for  all  time — and  settled  right — bv 
amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  policy 
of  the  Direct  Primary,  combated  by  the  machine 
element  at  the  1907  and  1909  sessions,  was  at  the  1913 
session  accepted  by  all  factions  as  a  matter  of  course. 
The  simplification  of  the  Australian  Ballot,  the  taking 
of  the  Judiciary  out  of  politics,  local  option  in  saloon 
licensing,  the  submission  of  an  Initiative  Amendment  to 
The  People,  free  distribution  of  school  text-books,  all 
defeated  in  1909,  were,  when  the  1913  Legislature  con- 
vened, accomplished  facts,  accepted  and  generally  en- 
dorsed as  good.  Indeed,  the  watchword  of  the  1913 
session  was,  "Continuance  of  the  policies  of  1911." 

But  the  attempted  continuance  of  the  1911  policies 
created  new  issues,  which  brought  to  Sacramento  the 
most  powerful  lobby  ever  assembled  there;  aroused  new 
opposition;  forced  new  alignments. 


CHAPTER  II. 
ORGANIZATION. 

In  the  1913  Legislature  four  political  elements  were 
represented,  Progressive,  Democratic,  Republican  and. 
Socialist. 

The  Progressives  were  in  overwhelming  majority. 
One  Socialist,12  the  first  to  be  elected  to  a  California 
Legislature,  held  place  in  the  Assembly.  Of  scarcely 
more  importance  numerically  than  the  Socialist  was  the 
Republican  group  in  both  Houses,  the  last  remnant  of 
the  old  Organization  guard,  which  had  gone  down  in 
defeat  at  the  elections  of  1910  and  1912. 

The  Democratic  minority  was  more  important.  Ten 
members  of  the  Senate  and  twenty-five  members  of  the 
Assembly  had  been  elected  as  Democrats. 

But  the  Democrats  were  divided  into  two  groups, 
the  Progressive  Democrats  constituting  one  group  and 
the  Reactionary  Democrats  the  other.  The  line  of 
division  between  the  two  groups  was  as  sharply  drawn 
as  the  line  between  the  Progressive  majority  and  the 
Republican  minority.  Logically,  the  Progressive  Dem- 
ocrats and  the  Progressives  belonged  in  the  same  group, 
and,  the  purposes  of  the  Reactionary  Democrats  and 
the  Republicans  being  the  same,  they  should  have  been 
together.  Such  was  the  real  division  of  the  1913  Legis- 

12  Klngsley  of   Los   Angeles. 


22  Organization 

lature.  The  party  division  insisted  upon  was  artificial 
and  illogical. 

The  situation  was  not  at  all  new.  The  California 
Legislature — except  when  forced  by  caucus  whip — has 
never  been  divided,  and  never  will  be  divided,  on  strictly 
party  lines  on  a  question  of  real  importance.  The  logi- 
cal line  of  division  in  the  old  days,13  left  Republicans  and 
Democrats  who  submitted  to  machine  domination  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  members  of  both  parties  who  refused 
to  submit  to  machine  domination  on  the  other.  The 
machine  element  understood  this  perfectly,  and  acted 
upon  it  brazenly. 

At  the  1907  and  1909  sessions,  for  example,  Bell 
of  Pasadena,  a  Republican  State  Senator,14  was  denied 
admittance  to  the  Republican  Senate  caucus.  He  had 
been  told  that  he  would  be  admitted  to  the  caucus 
provided  he  make  his  peace  with  the  Southern  Pacific 
boss  in  Southern  California,  whom  Bell  had  worsted  at 
the  polls.  This,  Bell  refused  to  do.  He  was  denied 
admittance  to  the  caucus  of  his  party. 

The  stupidity  of  Republican-Democrat  partisan  di- 
vision at  the  1913  session  was  recognized  alike  by  Dem- 
ocrats and  Progressives,  who  see  something  more  in  the 


is  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapters 
VIII  to  XIII  inclusive. 

14  The  reason  given  for  denying  Bell  caucus  privileges  was  that 
he  had  defeated  a  regularly  nominated  Republican.  But  in  1900 
Wright  of  Santa  Clara  county,  a  Republican  running  as  an  inde- 
pendent and  Democrat,  defeated  a  regularly  nominated  Republican 
and  was  admitted  to  the  Republican  Assembly  caucus.  In  1902, 
Shortridge  of  Santa  Clara  county,  running  as  an  Independent,  de- 
feated a  regularly  nominated  Republican.  But  Shortridge  was  ad- 
mitted without  question  to  the  1903  Republican  Senate  caucus. 
There  was  ample  precedent  for  admitting  Bell  to  the  1907  and 
1909  Republican  caucuses,  over  the  objection  which  the  "machine" 
element  raised  against  him. 


Organization  23 

progressive  movement  in  both  parties  than  prospective 
change,  with  readjustment  which  may  give  opportunity 
to  grab  office15  or  preferment. 

But  it  was  one  thing  to  recognize  such  stupidity  and 
quite  another  to  avoid  it. 

The  question  of  the  character  of  the  caucus  to  be 
held  for  organization  of  the  Legislature  was  raised 
immediately  after  the  November,  1912,  elections.  Among 
leaders  who  had,  as  Republicans,  opposed  the  old  South- 
ern Pacific  machine,  and  who  were  now  counted  Pro- 
gressives, there  was  no  unanimity  of  sentiment.  A 
strong  group,  principally  from  Southern  California, 
backed,  it  was  generally  understood,  by  Governor  John- 
son, wanted  a  straight  Progressive  caucus.  On  the 
other  hand,  several  who  had  been  anti-machine  Repub- 
licans, especially  Senate  leaders,  refused  to  attend  a 
strictly  Progressive  caucus,  some  going  so  far  as  to 
refuse  to  attend  a  caucus  of  Progressive  Republicans. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  Progressives  who  had 
succeeded  in  getting  completely  out  of  their  Republican 
shell,  refused  absolutely  to  attend  a  straight  Republican 
caucus. 

Nevertheless,  before  the  session  convened,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  secure  organization  on  a  strictly  non- 
partisan,  progressive  basis.  The  test  proposed  was 
endorsement  of  the  general  policies  of  the  1911  session. 

A  call  for  a  general  caucus  was  accordingly  issued. 

"The  undersigned,"  the  call  read,   "who  believe  in 


is  It  has  been  wittily  observed  that  some  are  Progressives  be- 
fore they  are  Republicans,  others  are  Progressives  before  they  are 
Democrats,  while  others  are  office-seekers  before  they  are  any- 
thing. 


24  Organization 

continuing  the  general  policies  laid  down  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  1911,  agree  to  meet  in  caucus  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  organization." 

That  was  a  call  which  all  progressives,  regardless 
of  party  label,  who  had  united  in  1909  to  down  the  old 
Southern  Pacific  "Organization,"  and  who,  united,  in 
1910-11  had  downed  it,  could  have  signed.18  Many  did 
sign  it.  But  objection  was  raised  that  the  meeting 
together  of  members  of  both  Houses  to  consider  plans 
for  organization  was  unprecedented.  The  general  caucus 
was  not  held. 

Failure  to  arrive  at  some  general  working  under- 
standing led  to  the  greatest  confusion  when  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  Houses  arrived  at  Sacramento. 

In  the  Senate  the  principal  official  to  be  selected  was 
the  President  pro  tern.  Boynton  of  Butte  was  the  logical 
candidate  for  this  position.  He  had  at  the  progressive 
1911  session  occupied  the  office  creditably.  But  Boyn- 

16  This  Importance  of  non-partisan  organization  was  generally 
recognized. 

"There  is,"  said  the  Sacramento  Bee,  in  its  issue  of  January  3, 
1913,  "sound  sense  in  the  movement  for  a  non-partisan  caucus  of 
the  members  of  each  House  of  the  Legislature,  with  relation  to 
organization. 

"The  only  real  dividing  line  in  the  incoming  Legislature,  as  In 
the  last,  is  that  which  separates  the  servants  of  Privilege  from 
those  of  The  People. 

"No  merely  partisan  considerations  should  prevent  truly  pro- 
gressive legislators  from  getting  together  to  further  the  policies 
that  characterized  the  Legislature  of  1911  and  made  It  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  and  useful  In  the  history  of  the  State. 

"The  People  of  California  little  care  whether  a  legislator  calls 
himself  a  Progressive,  a  Republican,  a  Democrat  or  something 
else.  They  will  judge  him  by  his  conduct,  not  by  his  professions 
nor  by  the  classification  he  may  give  himself.  They  will  look  to 
his  record — his  votes,  speeches  and  affiliations. 

"The  Legislature  properly  is  not  a  place  to  make  political  capi- 
tal, but  to  serve  the  public — to  provide  for  the  support  of  the 
State's  institutions  and  make  such  laws  as  may  be  found  needful 
and  beneficial  for  The  People. 

"And  the  best  way  for  any  Republican,  Democrat  or  Progres- 
sive to  serve  his  party  is  to  give  faithful  service  to  the  State." 


Organization  25 

ton,  a  hold-over  Senator,  had  been  elected  in  1910  as  a 
Republican.  He  could  not  see  his  way  clear  to  enter 
a  purely  Progressive  caucus,17  and  yet  the  Republicans 
in  the  Senate  were  almost  as  scarce  as  Socialists.  An 
amusing  angle  of  the  situation  was  that  Boynton,  thanks 
to  the  excellent  progressive  record  he  had  made  at  the 
1907  and  1909  sessions,  had,  when  he  came  up  for  re- 
election in  1910,  been  nominated  by  the  Democrats  and 
Socialists,  as  well  as  by  the  Republicans.  He  was  given 
this  Democratic-Socialist  support  because  he  was  re- 
garded as  a  Progressive.  That  Boynton  should  con- 
tend he  could  not  enter  a  purely  Progressive  caucus 
indicates  the  confusion  attending  the  smashing  of  party 
lines  when  the  "machine,"  which  had  controlled  both 
the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties,  went  to  wreck 
at  the  elections  of  1910  and  1912. 

In  the  Assembly  the  principal  official  to  be  selected 
was  the  Speaker.    There  were  five  named  as  candidates : 


IT  Senator  Boynton  was  not  always  so  concerned  about  caucus 
labels. 

At  the  1907  session,  for  example,  the  Republican,  machine- 
controlled  caucus  took  up  plans  to  punish  a  newspaper  man  named 
Livernash.  Livernash  had  been  tearing  into  the  Legislature 
through  the  medium  of  a  San  Francisco  paper.  The  Legislature 
prepared  to  deny  Livernash  the  privileges  usually  accorded  news- 
papermen. The  Republican  caucus  met  to  consider  the  situation. 
Boynton  refused  to  be  a  party  to  such  a  performance  and  walked 
out  of  the  caucus. 

At  the  1909  session,  when  the  "machine"  Republicans  and 
"machine"  Democrats  got  together  to  prevent  the  passage  of  an 
effective  Direct  Primary  law,  Boynton  was  one  of  the  leaders  In 
the  opposing  movement  to  get  the  anti-machine  Republicans  and 
the  anti-machine  Democrats  together  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the 
"machine"  Senators. 

The  anti-machine  Senators  actually  held  a  caucus,  in  which 
Democrats  and  Republicans,  Boynton  with  them,  met  on  the 
common-sense  basis  of  working  for  the  good  of  the  State.  The 
novel  affair  scandalized  every  partisan  in  the  Legislature,  but  out 
of  this  first  Progressive  caucus — for  such  it  was — came  the  Direct 
Primary  law — imperfect  in  many  respects,  but  still  a  Direct  Pri- 
mary law — under  which  the  "machine"  element  was  smashed. — See 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapter  IX,  page  84. 


26  Organization 

Sutherland  of  Fresno,  Bohnett  of  San  Jose,  Benedict 
of  Los  Angeles  and  Young  of  Berkeley — who,  as 
Republicans,  had  at  previous  sessions  been  identified 
with  the  "anti-machine"  or  Progressive  movement — 
and  Killingsworth  of  Solano,  a  Democrat. 

Had  the  Progressive  Republicans  caucused  while  the 
several  Progressive  candidates  were  in  the  fight  the 
probabilities  are  that  the  largest  minority  would  have 
been  found  for  Benedict,18  although  Benedict  might  not 
have  had  the  necessary  majority  of  the  caucus  to  nomi- 
nate. Benedict,  too,  would  have  been  strong  in  a  strictly 
non-partisan  caucus  of  Progressive  Republicans  and 
Democrats. 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  generally  conceded  that 
if  the  fight  were  carried  to  the  floor  of  the  Assembly 
Sutherland  would  have  the  best  of  it,  although  it  was 
by  no  means  certain  that  he  could  secure  the  necessary 
majority  vote  of  the  Assembly  to  elect.  At  any  rate, 
Bohnett  believed  the  situation  favorable  to  his  own  elec- 
tion. But  it  developed  at  the  test  that  he  was  placing 
more  dependence  in  promises  of  San  Francisco  Assem- 


18  One  of  the  few  pleasant  features  of  the  situation  which  de- 
veloped over  this  contest  for  speakership,  was  the  broad-minded 
attitude  taken  by  Benedict.  The  Fresno  Republican,  which  fa- 
vored Sutherland  for  the  Speakership,  in  its  Issue  of  January  6, 
1913,  when  the  contest  was  hot  on,  said  of  Benedict's  course: 

"The  immediate  contest  is  over  the  Speakership,  with  the 
prospect,  apparently,  still  favoring  Sutherland  of  Fresno.  The  re- 
ported objections  of  some  of  the  Progressives  from  Southern  Cali- 
fornia to  a  non-partisan  caucus  Indicates  that  they  concede  that 
Sutherland  would  be  the  choice  of  such  a  caucus.  On  the  other 
hand,  probably  the  necessary  signatures  could  not  be  secured  for 
any  other  sort  of  a  caucus,  and  without  any  caucus  Sutherland 
would  win,  too.  It  is  only  fair  to  say,  however,  that  Benedict, 
the  Southern  California  candidate,  himself  signed  the  call  for  the 
non-partisan  caucus,  and  has  shown  throughout  a  very  excellent 
spirit.  So  there  is  no  likelihood  of  any  truculent  split  with  his 
consent." 


Organization  27 

blymen  than  their  records  justified.  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers who  had  pledged  themselves  in  writing  to  Bohnett, 
were  not  for  him  when  they  arrived  at  Sacramento. 

Young's  candidacy  was  not  regarded  seriously  even 
by  himself  until  the  hour  of  the  decision  in  his  favor.19 

As  for  Killingsworth,  in  a  strict  party  division,  he 
could,  if  he  controlled  the  Democratic  caucus,  count  upon 
twenty-five  votes.  This  was  within  sixteen  of  enough 
to  elect.  With  the  Reactionary  Republican  votes  he 
would  have  four  or  five  more,  which  was  still  ten  or 
more  less  than  the  forty-one  necessary  for  election. 

When  the  members  of  the  two  Houses  arrived  at 
Sacramento  on  the  day  before  the  Legislature  was. 
to  convene  none  could  say  what  action  would  be  taken. 

Leaders  among  the  Senators  had  decided  to  attempt 
to  get  a  majority  of  the  Senate  into  caucus,  using  as  a 
basis  of  the  caucus  call,  declaration  for  continuance  of 
the  general  policies  of  the  Legislature  of  1911.  The 
Assembly  could  not  even  get  so  far  as  that  until  some 
solution  of  the  Speakership  controversy  should  be 
reached. 

Under  this  call  all  the  Progressive  Senators  of  all 
the  parties  could  have  consistently  joined  in  organiza- 
tion of  the  Senate.  But  not  a  Democrat  availed  himself 
of  the  opportunity.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  Pro- 


19  Young  made  no  contest  for  the  position.  He  declared  that 
he  was  not  to  be  considered  until  it  became  evident  that  none 
of  the  other  three  Progressive  candidates  could  be  agreed  upon. 
His  election  was  unique.  He  had  made  no  campaign  for  the 
position;  he  had  asked  no  member's  support.  This  left  him  abso- 
lutely independent.  Significant  indication  of  the  character  of 
his  candidacy  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  although  Young  was 
elected  Speaker  at  noon  of  Monday,  January  6,  San  Francisco 
morning  papers  of  that  day  announce  that  Young's  candidacy  was 
not  seriously  considered. 


28  Organization 

gressives  and  all  the  Republicans  who  had  reached  Sac- 
ramento went  into  the  caucus.  Perhaps  the  most  glaring 
absurdity  of  the  situation  was  the  presence  of  Senator 
Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego.  Senator  Wright  in  the 
1911  Legislature  stood  firmly  in  opposition  to  the  poli- 
cies of  that  session.  He  was,  during  the  1913  session, 
to  remain  in  opposition  to  continuance  of  such  policies. 
And  yet,  for  the  purposes  of  Senate  organization  we 
find  Senator  Wright  participating  in  a  caucus  made  up 
in  the  main  of  men  whom  he  had  consistently  opposed 
at  the  1911  session,  and  in  large  measure  was  to  con- 
tinue to  oppose  at  the  session  of  1913.  But  Wright  was 
nevertheless  admitted  to  the  caucus.  On  the  other  hand, 
Democratic  Senators  of  the  type  of  Campbell  and  Shan- 
ahan,  whose  consistent  support  of  the  Progressive  poli- 
cies of  1911  had  made  the  enactment  of  progressive 
measures  possible,  did  not  appear  at  the  caucus. 

Of  such  are  the  absurdities  of  the  partisan  political 
alignments. 

The  caucus  thus  constituted,  containing  a  majority 
of  the  Senate,  provided  for  Senate  organization  by  nam- 
ing Senator  A.  E.  Boynton  of  Butte  to  be  President 
pro  tern.,20  Walter  N.  Parrish  of  Stockton  to  be  Secre- 
tary, and  Joseph  L.  Coughlin  of  Oakland  to  be  Sergeant- 
at-Arms. 

The  several-cornered  fight  for  Speakership  of  the 
Assembly  was  not  so  easily  settled. 

In  that  body  the  three  important  places  to  be  filled 

20  For  President  pro  tern,  the  Democrats  nominated  Curtin  of 
Sonora.  Curtin  received  eight  votes,  all  Democratic  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Boyn ton's;  Boynton  received  twenty-nine,  Curtin  being1 
the  only  Democrat  to  vote  for  him.  The  Democrats  offered  no 
candidate  for  Secretary  nor  for  Sergeant -at- Arms. 


Organization  29 

other  than  the  Speakership,  were,  Speaker  pro  tern., 
Chief  Clerk,  and  Sergeant-at-Arms.21  No  serious  oppo- 
sition developed  to  the  election  of  L.  B.  Mallory  of 
Los  Gatos  to  the  chief  clerkship.22 

But  the  San  Francisco  delegation  made  characteristic 
contest  for  the  office  for  Sergeant-at-Arms.  The  can- 
didate whom  San  Francisco  advanced  for  this  office  was 
Andrew  Cunningham.  Mr.  Cunningham,  as  an  Assem- 
blyman from  San  Francisco,  had  served  in  the  1911 
Legislature.23 

21  The   position   of   Sergeant-at-Arms   of   either  House   is   most 
important.     That  official   executes   the  commands   of  the   Speaker; 
he  has  supervision  of  a  large  number  of  the  attaches;  he  acts  as 
bookkeeper  and  purchasing  agent.     He  is  at  the  same  time  busi- 
nessman and  policeman  of  the  House,  which  he  serves.     At  times 
the  ability — or  desire — of  members  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms'  office 
to  locate   absent  members,   may   turn   the   tide  for  or  against  the 
passage  of  a  bill.     When,  for  example,  the  Brown   (Senator)  Anti- 
Prize  Fight  bill   (Senate  Bill  No.   735)  was  pending  in  the  Senate, 
Senator  Boynton  was  wanted.     The  deputy  Sergeant-at-Arms  who 
was  sent  to  get  him,  was  unable  to  do  so.     Senator  Brown's  clerk, 
however,  had  no  difficulty  in  finding  the  absent  Senator  in  one  of 
the  places  a  member  of  the  Upper  House  was  most  likely  to  be — 
the    Governor's    office.    When    the    Brown     (Assemblyman)     Anti- 
Prize    Fight    bill    was    pending    in    the    Assembly,    Assemblyman 
Mouser  was  wanted.     Mouser  was  in  the  Senate  Chamber  at  the 
time.     The  Sergeant-at-Arms'  office  failed  to  locate  him.     Had  he 
been   told  that   he  was  wanted   he  would  have  voted  for  the  bill, 
which  would  have  brought  it  within  one  vote  of  passage. 

22  Mallory  had  served  as  Chief  Clerk  of  the  1911  session.     His 
work    had     been    generally     satisfactory.     Nevertheless,     the     San 
Francisco  Call  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  1911  session, 
labored  to  discredit  Mallory's  work.     So  persistent  were  The  Call's 
attacks,    that    Mallory    found    it    necessary    to    issue    a    statement 
showing    their   falsity.     Mallory's    election,    practically   without    op- 
position,   to    be    Chief    Clerk    of    the    1913    session,    indicated    the 
amount  of  credit  given   The  Call's  attacks. 

23  Mr.    Cunningham's  legislative  voting  record  on   the  big  Pro- 
gressive policies  considered  at  that  session  was  somewhat  mixed. 
He  was  one  of  the  five  members  of  the  1911  Assembly,  for  exam- 
ple,   who    voted    against    the    anti-Racetrack    Gambling    bill;    one 
of  the  twelve  Assemblymen  who  voted  against  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  to  give  suffrage  to  women;  one  of  the  sixteen  Assem- 
blymen  who   voted   against   Chandler's    resolution    condemning    the 
whitewashing  of  Lorimer  by  the  United  States  Senate;  one  of  the 
twenty-one  Assemblymen  who  voted  against  the  short  ballot  meas- 
ure, making  the  office  of  State  Printer  appointive;  one  of  the  five 
members  who  voted  against  the  Constitutional  Amendment  grant- 
ing home  rule  to  counties.     On  six  out  of  eighteen  roll-calls  where 


30  Organization 

The  story  was  circulated,  and  generally  credited,  that 
the  San  Francisco  delegation,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent, 
would  support  Sutherland  for  Speaker.  This  made  the 
San  Francisco  ticket  Sutherland-Cunningham. 

"The  San  Francisco  Bull  Moose  members,"  said  the 
San  Francisco  Chronicle,24  "are  not  committing  them- 
selves. They  favor  Sutherland  personally,  but  the  or- 
ders have  not  been  given.  They  plan  to  trade  their 
votes  for  the  best  they  can  get." 

The  next  step  in  the  growing  combination  was  the 
advancement  of  W.  S.  Killingsworth  for  Speaker  pro 
tem.  Mr.  Killingsworth  had  been  the  Democratic  can- 
didate for  Speaker,  but  with  the  on-sweep  of  the  Suth- 
erland-Cunningham combination,  Killingsworth  for  a 
time  was  "mentioned"  for  Speaker  pro  tem.  It  was 
argued  that  the  Democrats  were  entitled  to  "recogni- 
tion"; that  by  electing  Sutherland,  Speaker;  Killings- 
big  policies  of  the  1911  Legislature  were  under  consideration,  Mr. 
Cunningham  is  not  recorded  as  voting.  See  Table  II  of  legislative 
votes,  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  Records  of 
Assemblymen  on  eighteen  test  votes. 

24  See  Chronicle,  issue  of  January  5,  1913,  page  89,  column  1. 
Of  the  Chronicle's  frank  statement  of  the  attitude  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation,  the  Fresno  Republican  in  its  issue  of  Jan- 
uary 6  said: 

"There  is  no  other  delegation  that  would  not  resent  that 
declaration  as  an  insult,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  the  San  Francisco 
legislators  will  do  so,  also.  If  they  'personally  favor'  any  candi- 
date, or  if,  later  in  the  session,  they  'personally  favor"  any  par- 
ticular legislation,  then  it  is  their  duty  as  free  men  to  vote  that 
personal  preference,  and  not  wait  for  'orders.'  It  is  just  this 
assumption  that  San  Francisco  legislators  do  not  own  themselves, 
but  that  they  prefer  to  be  the  property  of  some  one  who  does 
their  thinking  for  them,  that  has  brought  San  Francisco  into  such 
ill  repute  legislatively.  The  present  delegation  is  greatly  improved 
in  personal  quality  over  most  of  its  predecessors.  It  would  be  re- 
freshing to  see  this  improvement  in  persons  manifest  itself  in  per- 
sonal freedom  of  action  on  personal  convictions  and  preferences. 
Probably  their  action  on  this  particular  issue  will  be  in  accord- 
ance with  their  own  preferences,  anyway.  But  they  should  resent 
and  put  a  stop  to  these  insinuations,  from  their  own  town,  that 
their  conduct  in  general  is  actuated  by  anything  but  personal 
choice.  To  be  another  man's  property  is  to  be  less  than  a  man." 


Organization  31 

worth,  Speaker  pro  tern.,  and  Cunningham  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  an  ideal  non-partisan  organization  of  the  Lower 
House  would  be  assured.  But  this  tentative  arrange- 
ment soon  gave  way  to  the  more  positive  statement  that 
the  combination  would  be:  Sutherland  for  Speaker, 
Ryan  of  San  Francisco  for  Speaker  pro  tern,  and  Cun- 
ningham for  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

But  these  arrangements  were  a  little  too  suggestive  of 
"practical  politics"  of  the  old  "machine"  days  to  get  far 
with  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  1913  Legisla- 
ture. The  criticism  which  resulted  made  Sutherland's 
election  difficult  if  not  impossible.  Bohnett  announced 
his  willingness  to  support  Young  for  Speaker.  The 
practical  elimination  of  Sutherland  left  Benedict  of  Los 
Angeles  for  the  moment  the  strongest  of  the  candidates. 

In  this  situation,  Sutherland  went  to  Benedict  on 
the  morning  of  the  day  the  Legislature  was  to  convene, 
and  suggested  that  both  withdraw  from  the  contest. 

Whether  Benedict  realized  the  strength  of  his  own 
position,  or  the  weakness  of  Sutherland's,  so  great  was 
the  confusion  of  the  time,  may  be  questioned.  It  was 
held  that  five  Democratic  Assemblymen  were  prepared 
to  go  into  a  non-partisan  caucus,  expressly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  voting  for  Sutherland.  But  Benedict  must  have 
known  his  chances  to  be  quite  as  good  as  those  of  Suth- 
erland. However,  there  were  other  influences  to  move 
him. 

He  knew  that  continuance  of  the  fight  between  them, 
regardless  of  the  outcome,  bade  fair  at  the  opening  of 
the  session  to  divide  the  not-greatly-in-the-majority  Pro- 
gressive forces  in  the  Assembly  hopelessly.  To  have 


32  Organization 

won  would  have  meant  the  defeat  in  contest  of  Suther- 
land, and  the  estrangement  of  Bohnett,  who  was  sup- 
porting Young.  Sutherland  and  Bohnett,  with  Young, 
were  the  only  prominent  Progressives  prepared  by  ex- 
perience to  take  care  of  the  floor  for  the  Speaker. 
With  these  leaders  out  of  sympathy  with  the  Speaker, 
the  Progressive  strength  in  the  Assembly  would  have 
been  broken  down. 

Benedict  consulted  with  as  many  of  his  supporters 
as  could  be  gathered  together.  They  advised  that  in 
the  interest  of  party  harmony  it  might  be  better  for 
Benedict  to  withdraw  with  Bohnett  and  Sutherland, 
in  the  interest  of  Young.  And  this,  in  the  interest  of 
a  united  Progressive  majority,  Benedict  did. 

Benedict's  course  assured  the  election  of  Young.  It 
also  eliminated  from  serious  consideration  the  candidacy 
of  Cunningham  and  of  Ryan. 

A  majority  of  the  Assembly  met  in  caucus  under  a 
non-partisan  call,25  and  nominated  Young  26  for  Speaker, 

25  But  one  Democrat  signed  this  call,  Guill  of  Butte. 

26  The   election  of  Boynton,   President  pro   tern,   of  the  Senate, 
and    Young,    Speaker    of    the    Assembly,    illustrated    the    changes 
which  had  taken  place  in  California  politics  since  1909. 

When,  for  example,  at  the  1909  session,  Senator  Boynton  was 
advocating  the  passage  of  a  Local  Option  law,  the  then  President 
pro  tern,  of  the  Senate,  Senator  E.  I.  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco, 
warned  Boynton  against  that  course.  In  his  speech  against  the 
bill  Wolfe  told  Boynton  that  he  (Wolfe)  thought  much  of  him. 

"But  I  want  to  warn  you,  Senator  Boynton,"  said  Wolfe  in 
effect,  "that  if  you  continue  in  your  support  of  this  measure  you 
will  never  be  returned  to  this  Senate.  Oroville  will  not  stand 
for  it." 

Senator  Boynton  is  from  Oroville. 

Wolfe's  warning  in  1909  was  serious.  The  groggery  and  gam- 
bling interests  were  then  all-powerful  in  California  politics. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  not  only  did  Senator 
Boynton  continue  his  support  of  the  Local  Option  bill,  but  Oro- 
ville united  at  the  1910  election  with  the  remainder  of  his  district 
to  return  Boynton  to  the  State  Senate.  Boynton  was,  at  the  1911 
session,  named  to  take  Wolfe's  old  place  as  President  pro  tem. 
At  the  1913  session,  Boynton  was  again  elevated  to  the  position 


Organization  33 

W.  A.  Johnstone  of  Los  Angeles,  Speaker  pro  tern. ; 
L.  B.  Mallory  of  Los  Gatos,  Chief  Clerk,  and  Ed.  E. 
Reese  of  Sacramento,  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

These  officials  were  duly  elected.27 

The  distribution  of  "patronage"  was  conducted  upon 
the  same  vicious  system  of  division  among  members  as 
had  ruled  during  the  days  of  "machine"  domination. 

At  each   session  of  the   Legislature  it  is   necessary 

of  President  pro  tern.  Wolfe  did  not  sit  in  the  1913  Legislature. 
He  had  been  defeated  for  re-election  on  the  issue  of  his  record. 
Incidentally,  under  the  Local  Option  law  of  1911  which  Boynton 
had  supported  and  Wolfe  opposed,  Oroville  had,  by  the  time  the 
1913  Legislature  convened,  voted  "dry." 

Young's  election  as  Speaker  was  quite  as  suggestive.  Young 
also  took  important  part  in  the  legislative  session  of  1909. 

After  the  1909  session  had  adjourned,  two  of  Young's  friends 
occupied  seats  on  a  train  to  San  Francisco  immediately  behind 
two  politicians  of  the  old  "machine"  type.  The  "machine"  men 
were  discussing  the  events  of  the  1909  session.  They  were  very 
sure  of  one  thing,  namely,  that  Young  of  Berkeley  should  not  be 
returned  to  the  Legislature.  The  grounds  for  opposing  him  were 
that  he  had  been  perniciously  active  in  supporting  an  anti-race- 
track gambling  bill,  which  threatened  to  close  up  the  machine- 
protected  Emeryville  gambling  establishment.  Young's  friends 
were  seriously  concerned.  The  "machine"  was  powerful.  They 
didn't  want  to  see  their  friend  Young  on  the  black  list. 

But  Young  was  returned  to  the  Legislature  in  1911,  and  again 
in  1913.  He  was  that  year  elected  to  the  highest  position  in  the 
gift  of  his  fellows. 

Incidentally,  The  People  of  California,  by  overwhelming  State- 
wide vote,  have  declared  that  no  racetrack  gambling  shall  be  per- 
mitted in  their  State. 

27  The  Democrats  nominated  J.  W.  Stuckenbruck  of  San  Joa- 
quin  for  Speaker.  The  vote  for  that  office  was  as  follows: 

For  Young — Messrs.  Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett, 
Bowman,  Brown,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark, 
Clarke,  Collins,  Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Fish, 
Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Green,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle, 
Inman,  Johnson  of  Santa  Barbara,  Johnston  of  Contra  Costa, 
Johnstone  of  Los  Angeles,  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  McDonald, 
Moorhouse,  Morganstern,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Peairs, 
Roberts,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shartel,  Smith,  Strine,  Stucken- 
bruck, Sutherland,  Weisel,  White,  Woodley,  and  Wyllie— 56. 

For  Stuckenbruck — Messrs.  Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bradford, 
Dower,  Finnegan,  Ford,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Killingsworth,  Libby, 
McCarthy,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simp- 
son, Slater,  Tulloch,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weldon,  and  Young — 24. 

The  Democrats  nominated  Bagby  of  Santa  Barbara  for  Speaker 
pro  tern.  Mr.  Bagby  received  twenty  votes.  Mr.  Johnstone  re- 
ceived fifty-six.  The  Democrats  did  not  contest  the  election  of 
Chief  Clerk  nor  of  Sergeant-at-Arms. 


34  Organization 

to  employ  clerks,  stenographers,  assistant  sergeants-at- 
arms,  porters,  pages  and  other  help.  This  employment 
has  not,  either  under  "machine"  domination,  or  under 
the  new  order,  been  given  on  the  basis  of  ability  to  do 
the  work. 

The  method  has  been — and  was  continued  at  the  1913 
session — to  permit  members  to  employ  whom  they  would 
regardless  of  the  ability  of  the  attaches  thus  employed 
to  do  the  work. 

Under  "machine"  rule,  the  distribution  of  this  pat- 
ronage had  been  limited  to  members  of  that  party  which 
had  the  most  votes.  Thus,  if  there  were  in  the  Senate 
twenty-five  Republicans  and  fifteen  Democrats,  and  the 
patronage  agreed  upon  totaled  $1000  a  day,  the  twenty- 
five  Republican  members  would  each  take  a  twenty-fifth 
of  the  $1000,  or  $40  a  day  each.  The  Democrats 
would  get  nothing.  Each  Republican  member  would 
proceed  to  put  men  and  women  on  the  pay  roll  until 
the  daily  wage  of  his  appointees  totaled  $40. 

The  majority  of  the  appointees  thus  named  would 
do  little  more  than  draw  their  salaries.  The  real  work 
of  the  session  would  fall  upon  the  competent  and  con- 
scientious few. 

A  less  defensible  plan  could  not  have  been  devised. 
Under  it,  the  State's  money  is  squandered ;  the  Leg- 
islature fails  to  secure  dependable  employees.28  Fur- 

28  The  importance  of  dependable  legislative  attaches  is  appar- 
ent. A  dishonest — or  even  a  blundering — attache  can  set  at  naught 
action  of  both  Houses.  Many  examples  could  be  given  where  this 
has  actually  been  done.  At  the  1907  session,  for  example,  a  bill 
was  passed,  providing  for  the  submission  to  the  electors  of  the 
State  the  question  of  a  bond  issue  for  important  improvements  at 
Islais  Creek,  San  Francisco  harbor.  The  measure  had  been 
strongly  opposed  by  certain  large  interests.  After  the  session  had 
taken  adjournment,  discovery  was  made  that  a  single  line  had 


Organization  35 

thermore,  injustice  is  worked  Senators  and  Assembly- 
men of  the  minority  party,  who  are  arbitrarily  denied 
clerical  assistance. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  one  member  of  Assembly  or 
Senate,  regardless  of  party  label,  is  as  much  a  legisla- 
tor as  any  other  member.  He  has  the  same  responsi- 
bilities, the  same  duties,  the  same  obligations  to  give 
courteous  treatment  to  constituents;  the  State  provides 
for  the  payment  of  competent  help  for  all.  One  legis- 
lator, therefore,  is  as  much  entitled  to  clerical  assistance 
as  any  other  member.29  But  the  most  serious  objection 
to  the  system  is,  of  course,  that  under  it  incompetent, 
irresponsible,  and  at  times  dishonest  attaches,  are  placed 
in  position  where  by  blunder  or  worse  they  may  defeat 
the  purpose  of  the  Legislature. 

At  the  1913  session,  however,  the  division  of  "pat- 
ronage" was  placed  on  a  more  equitable  basis  than 
before. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  places  were  apportioned  among 
all  the  members,  Progressive,  Republican,  Democratic 
and  Socialist  alike. 


been  omitted  from  the  bill.  The  omission  rendered  the  measure 
valueless.  At  the  1909  session,  the  Maher  bill,  providing  for  ade- 
quate management  of  the  Big  Basin  Park,  after  it  had  passed  both 
Houses,  dropped  out  of  sight  completely.  The  measure  had  been 
opposed  by  a  powerful  lobby.  Such  cases  could  be  multiplied. 
The  attaches  responsible  have  proved  themselves  more  potent  in 
legislative  matters  than  the  legislators  themselves. 

29  Many  minority  members  found  it  necessary  to  employ  cleri- 
cal assistance  at  their  own  expense,  services  for  which  the  State 
makes  more  than  generous  allowance.  At  the  extraordinary  ses- 
sion of  1911,  for  example,  Senator  Shanahan,  being  a  member  of 
the  minority,  was  out  of  the  patronage  division.  He  had,  however, 
far  more  work  than  the  average  member  of  the  Senate.  It  was 
necessary  for  him  to  have  a  stenographer.  He  accordingly  em- 
ployed one,  paying  S5  a  day  out  of  his  private  funds.  Senator 
Shanahan  received  $10  a  day  for  his  services  as  State  Senator, 
out  of  which  he  had  his  expenses  to  pay. 


36  Organization 

In  the  Senate  the  Progressives  and  Republicans  took 
all  the  patronage  for  themselves  with  the  exception  of 
twenty  dollars  a  day  which  they  gave  to  the  ten  Demo- 
cratic members  to  divide  as  they  saw  fit.  The  trouble 
which  the  Democrats  had  in  dividing  that  twenty  dollars 
a  day — two  dollars  each — resulted  in  hours-long  debate, 
which,  counting  the  time  of  the  Senate,  cost  the  State 
hundreds  of  dollars.  These  debates  gave  the  reactionary 
press  opportunity  for  criticism.30 


so  These  criticisms  were  resented  and  met: 

"We  have,"  said  the  Fresno  Republican  in  its  issue  of  Janu- 
ary 11,  1913,  "conceded  that  petty  wrangling'  over  patronage  is 
unseemly,  even  when  confined  to  the  limits  of  decency  and  hon- 
esty now  observed.  But  there  is  something  much  more  unseemly 
than  wrangling  over  patronage,  and  that  is  lying  about  it.  That 
is  what  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  did  yesterday,  and  did  it  in 
a  particularly  snarling  and  stupid  fashion,  too.  In  an  editorial 
headed,  'Patronage  Pigs;  Sacramento  Seems  to  be  Specially  Full 
of  Them  Just  Now,'  the  Chronicle,  after  a  half  a  column  of  sneer 
at  reformers  for  not  being  perfect,  ended  by  the  fling,  'We  are 
compelled  to  say  that  in  the  disgraceful  scramble  for  petty  pat- 
ronage the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  "Army  of  the  Lord"  are 
about  the  greediest  this  State  has  seen.' 

"The  Chronicle  is  not  'compelled'  to  say  anything  of  the  sort, 
and  if  it  had  any  regard  for  the  truth  it  would  be  'compelled' 
to  say  the  exact  contrary.  It  is  of  a  piece  with  the  cheap  fling 
that  the  present  reform  government  has  established  a  'machine 
that  would  make  Herrin  green  with  envy.'  You  hear  shallow- 
pated  parrots  echo  that  too,  though  it  is  so  absurdly  false  that  it 
will  not  stand  three  seconds'  serious  analysis.  Doubtless  if  some 
political  upheaval  should  turn  out  a  grafter  who  stole  the  funds 
and  put  in  a  reformer  who  smoked  cigarettes,  we  should  hear 
that  a  cigarette-smoker  was  infinitely  worse  than  a  thief.  And 
we  have  all  seen  an  administration  which  closed  all  the  saloons 
but  only  succeeded  in  abolishing  nine-tenths  of  the  drunkenness, 
berated  as  having  produced  conditions  'far  worse  than  before."  It 
is  the  commonest  refuge  of  vicious  stupidity  to  pretend  that  re- 
formers, if  they  are  not  quite  perfect,  are  far  worse  than  any  sort 
of  thieves  and  grafters. 

"This  is  the  cheap,  police-shyster  device  of  the  Chronicle.  The 
Chronicle  remembers  the  patronage  grabs  and  grafts  of  other 
days.  It  recalls  the  Assembly  that  appointed  eighty-three  door- 
keepers to  keep  three  doors  opening  into  a  narrow  corridor  in 
which  the  eighty-three  could  not  have  found  standing  room.  It 
recalls  the  appointments  of  'stenographers'  who  could  not  read 
and  write.  It  has  seen  State  Senators  appoint  common  prostitutes 
as  'committee  clerks,'  and  brazenly  flaunt  their  painted  faces  on 
the  very  floor  of  the  Senate.  It  has  seen  great  hordes  of  ap- 
pointees on  the  pay  roll  who  did  not  even  stay  in  Sacramento, 
but  discounted  their  whole  session's  pay  and  went  back  to  San 


Organization  37 

A  not-very-well  supported  attempt  was  made  to 
change  the  system,  by  removing  the  attaches  from  con- 
trol of  majority  caucus.  Senate  bill  108  (Caminetti) 
provided,  as  finally  amended,  that  each  member  of  Sen- 
ate and  Assembly  should  be  entitled  to  a  clerk  whose 
compensation  was  fixed  at  five  dollars  a  day.  Further 
provision  was  made  that  such  clerks  should  be  compe- 
tent stenographers.  The  clerk  of  each  chairman  of  a 
committee  was  required  to  act  as  clerk  of  his  principal's 
committee,  in  which  event  provision  was  made  for  com- 
pensation in  excess  of  five  dollars  a  day.  The  measure 
failed,  however,  to  pass  the  Senate.31  When  the  1915 

Francisco  to  carouse  on  it.  It  has  seen  this  'patronage  grab' 
transformed  from  a  foul  public  scandal  to  the  present  system, 
which  is  absolutely  honest  and  decent  and  thoroughly  efficient, 
and  stops  just  one  step  short  of  being  perfectly  economical  and 
idealistically  unselfish.  And,  because  it  is  just  a  shade  short  of 
ideal,  the  Chronicle  maliciously,  stupidly  and  falsely  says  that  it 
is  about  the  worst  in  the  history  of  the  State. 

"This  is  a  small  matter,  in  its  way — though  it  was  a  big  mat- 
ter once,  in  the  old,  grafting  days.  But  it  is  not  a  small  matter 
when  a  metropolitan  newspaper  deliberately  lies  to  the  people 
about  the  character  of  their  representatives.  The  People  cannot 
all  go  to  Sacramento,  to  watch  the  Legislature.  They  must  get 
their  information  from  the  newspapers.  When  the  Legislature 
was  dominated  by  a  pack  of  slaves  and  thieves,  the  Chronicle 
rendered  a  useful  service  by  saying  so.  Now  that  honest,  decent 
and  free  men  have  been  substituted,  some  generous  appreciation 
of  that  fact  is  the  duty  of  every  man  with  a  soul.  And  if  the 
Chronicle  has  no  soul,  and  can  appreciate  nothing,  it  can  at  least 
not  lie  about  it.  We  have  repeated  the  word  'lie'  several  times 
in  this  connection,  for  the  purpose  of  being  offensive.  It  is  in- 
tended as  an  insult,  and  we  hope  the  Chronicle  will  take  it  as 
such." 

31  There  were  valid  arguments  which  could  be  brought  against 
the  measure  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  finally  acted  upon. 
While,  for  example,  stenographers  are  necessary  as  legislative  at- 
taches, stenographers  do  not  necessarily  make  competent  commit- 
tee clerks.  The  advisability  of  employing  120  stenographers  might 
well  be  questioned.  Again,  the  patronage  of  each  House  is  now 
limited  by  the  State  Constitution  to  $500  a  day.  The  employing  of 
eighty  stenographers  in  the  Assembly  at  five  dollars  a  day  or 
more,  would  about  exhaust  the  Assembly's  allowance  without  leav- 
ing provision  for  porters,  desk  clerks,  sergeant-at-arms  and  other 
necessary  attaches.  However,  the  measure  furnished  basis  for  a 
practical  bill.  It  was  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  the  following  vote: 

For    the    bill — Senators    Avey,    Butler,    Campbell,    Cohn,    Grant, 


38  Organization 

Legislature  convenes,  its  members  will  be  confronted 
with  the  same  inadequate  method  of  employing  attaches 
which  developed  during  the  days  of  "machine"  domina- 
tion. 

Committee  organization  was  along  practically  the 
same  lines  as  had  been  followed  at  the  1911  session. 
Committees  were  not  appointed  as  had  been  the  case 
during  the  days  of  "machine"  domination,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  stifling  good  legislation.  The  Public  Morals 
Committees,  for  example,  were  not  made  up  of  men 
calculated  to  block  legislation  which  might  interfere  with 
the  freedom  of  exploitation  of  gambling  hell,  brothel 
and  groggery.  The  committees  on  corporations  were 
not  named  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  measures  which 
might  prove  objectionable  to  large  corporative  interests. 
The  chairmen  of  the  Judiciary  committees  were  not 
named  because  they  could  be  depended  upon  to  make 
their  committees  the  "grave-yards  of  good  bills."  In- 
stead, the  personnel  of  the  various  committees  indicated 
a  desire  upon  the  part  both  of  Speaker  Young  in  the 
Assembly,  and  of  President  Wallace  in  the  Senate,  to 
give  all  factions  committee  representation. 

In  some  instances  this  purpose  was  followed  to  an 
absurd  degree.  In  selecting  the  Assembly  Committee 
on  Public  Morals,  for  example,  the  Assemblyman  from 
the  district  covered  by  the  San  Francisco  tenderloin  was 

Hewitt,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larklns,  Owens,  Sanford,  and  Shanahan 
—12. 

Against  the  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Beban,  Benson,  Boynton, 
Breed,  Caminetti,  Carr,  Finn,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Jones,  Regan, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 17. 

Caminetti  changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no  to  give  notice  to 
move  for  reconsideration.  The  following  day  reconsideration  was 
granted,  and  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee 
from  which  it  was  never  returned. 


Organization  39 

given  place  there.  The  same  thing-  had  been  done  at  the 
1911  session.  That  year  Mr.  Victor  A.  Sbragia  had 
represented  the  district.  At  the  1913  session  the  district 
was  represented  by  Mr.  Victor  J.  Canepa.  The  gentle- 
men from  the  San  Francisco  tenderloin  district  may 
have  been  high-class  men,  peculiarly  well-fitted  for  place 
on  the  Public  Morals  Committee,  or  they  may  have  been 
quite  the  reverse.  But  if  they  were  named  for  this 
particular  committee,  solely  because  the  district  from 
which  they  came  embraces  the  most  shameful  spot  in 
California,  the  motive  governing  their  selection  was,  of 
course,  absurd. 

A  more  reasonable  policy  governed  in  the  selection 
of  the  chairman  of  the  Assembly  Public  Morals  Com- 
mittee. Nelson  of  Humboldt  was  given  this  chairman- 
ship. 

Nelson  had  defeated  the  candidate  who  had  been 
given  the  endorsement  of  the  "dry"  element  of  his  dis- 
trict. He  was  generally  credited  with  having  had  the 
support  of  the  liquor  political  combine.  But  it  did  not 
matter  so  much  whether  the  chairman  of  the  commit- 
tee had  had  "dry"  support  or  "wet"  support,  or  the 
opposition  of  either,  so  long  as  he  was  broad-gauged 
and  prepared  to  consider  the  measures  brought  before 
his  committee  on  their  merits.  Nelson  was  appointed  to 
his  important  position,  not  because  the  "drys"  had  op- 
posed his  election,  or  because  the  "wets"  had  supported 
him,  but  because  the  Speaker  regarded  him  as  broad- 
minded,  with  the  discernment  to  see  the  right  thing  to 
do  and  the  courage  to  do  it.  The  developments  of  the 


40  Organization 

session  showed  that  Speaker  Young's  judgment  in  this 
instance  was  not  misplaced. 

The  committee  organization  of  both  Houses,  made 
in  the  main  for  fitness  and  service,  was  in  marked  con- 
trast to  the  organization  of  the  days  of  "machine"  dom- 
ination, when  committees  were  appointed  at  the  behest 
of  special  interests,  to  block  the  passage  of  good  meas- 
ures, and  to  promote  the  passage  of  the  undesirable.82 


32  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  page  24, 
Senate  committee  organization,  and  page  35,  Assembly  committee 
organization. 


CHAPTER  III. 
PROPOSED  REVISION  OF  THE  RULES. 

The  first  question  of  moment  with  which  the  1913 
Legislature  had  to  deal  after  organization,  was  the  pro- 
posed changes  in  the  rules  governing  each  House. 

That  change  in  the  rules  is  desirable,  is  admitted. 
But  the  changes  proposed  were  so  astonishingly  radical 
that  the  proposals  were,  in  the  main,  rejected.  The 
rejected  provisions,  however,  indicate  the  drift  of  de- 
velopment of  the  legislative  system,  and  in  this  find 
their  chief  importance.  The  drift  is: 

(1)  Toward  a  one-house  Legislature. 

(2)  Toward  curtailing,  or  at  least  controlling,  news- 
paper  and   other  comment  and  criticism   of  legislative 
activities. 

The  experience  of  the  191 1  session  had  been  that  the 
governing  rules  failed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
Legislature.  Because  of  their  indefinite  provisions  the 
regularity  of  the  procedure  followed  in  the  passage  of 
several  important  measures  was  brought  into  serious 
question.33  Then  again,  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 
amendment  to  the  State  Constitution,  under  which  the 
1913  Legislature  was  to  convene,  required  some  definite 
system  of  procedure  in  urgency  cases  requiring  the  sus- 


33  The  Local  Option  bill,  for  example,  was  at  one  time  in 
danger  because  of  the  ambiguous  wording  of  the  joint  rules  gov- 
erning free  conference  reports.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Leg- 
islature of  1911,"  Chapter  XVII,  page  213. 


42          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

pension  of  the  referendum  provision  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution.34 

A  committee  of  six — consisting  of  three  Senators  and 
three  Assemblymen — was  accordingly  appointed  to  draw 
up  a  set  of  rules  to  be  presented  to  the  1913  Legisla- 
ture. For  the  Senate,  President  Wallace  appointed  Sen- 
ator Leroy  A.  Wright 35  of  San  Diego  to  be  chairman  of 

84  The  amendment  provides  that  no  act  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture   shall   become   effective   until   ninety   days   after   the   adjourn- 
ment of  the  Legislature  which  passed  such  act.     This  is  to  give 
the   public  opportunity  to  invoke  the  referendum  against  it.     But 
exception  is  made  that  "whenever  it  is  deemed  necessary  for  the 
immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace,   health  or  safety  that 
a   law   shall   go   into    immediate   effect,    a   statement   of   the   facts 
constituting   such   necessity   shall   be    set   forth   in   one   section   of 
the  act,  which  section  shall  be  passed  only  upon  a  yea  and  nay 
vote,    upon    a   separate    roll    call    thereon."    Acts    containing   such 
emergency   clauses,    under   the   terms   of   the   amendment,    go   into 
immediate  effect. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  how  shall  such  urgency  clause 
be  treated,  and  when  shall  it  be  voted  upon?  No  such  provis- 
ion is  contained  in  the  Constitution.  The  original  draft  of  the 
rules  compiled  by  Senator  Wright  provided  that  the  clause  should 
be  treated  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  and  the  vote  upon  It  be 
taken  just  before  the  measure  was  put  to  flnal  passage.  The 
question  upon  which  the  urgency  vote  was  to  be  put  was:  Shall 
the  urgency  clause  remain  part  of  the  bill?  If,  under  Wright's 
proposed  plan,  the  clause  received  a  two-thirds  vote,  the  bill 
could  be  put  on  its  immediate  passage,  for  no  change  would  be 
made  in  the  measure.  But  if  the  urgency  clause  failed  of  adop- 
tion then  the  bill  would  be  changed,  and  its  reprinting  would  be 
necessary.  The  rule  governing  the  urgency  clause  as  finally  ac- 
cepted by  both  Houses,  however,  reads: 

"Upon  the  third  reading  of  an  act  which  is  an  urgency  meas- 
ure within  the  meaning  of  Section  1  of  Article  IV  of  the  State 
Constitution,  the  presiding  officer  shall  direct  that  the  section  of 
said  act  setting  forth  the  facts  constituting  the  necessity  for  such 
urgency  (which  shall  be  known  as  the  urgency  section)  be  then 
read  and  put  to  vote.  The  question  shall  be  thus  stated:  'Shall 
this  section  setting  forth  the  urgency  features  of  this  bill  be 
passed?'  If  upon  such  final  vote  two-thirds  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  the  House  in  which  the  vote  is  being  taken  shall  not 
vote  in  the  affirmative,  no  further  action  shall  be  taken  on  the 
bill;  but,  in  case  an  identical  bill  without  such  an  emergency 
clause  be  again  introduced  into  such  house,  such  bill  shall  be 
placed  on  file  without  reference  to  any  committee." 

85  The  incongruity  of  this  appointment  was  apparent.     One  of 
the  most  important  duties  of  the  committee,  for  example,   was  to 
provide  rules  for  meeting  Constitutional   provisions  governing  the 
Referendum.     Senator  Wright  was  entirely  out  of  sympathy  with 
this  reform,  being  the  only  member  of  the  1911  session  who  voted 
against  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment. 

The  argument  has  been  advanced  that  in  as  much  as  Senator 


Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules          43 

the  committee.  The  Senators  named  to  serve  with 
Wright  were  Cartwright  and  Boynton. 

The  Assembly  committee  was  made  up  of  Suther- 
land, Held  and  Young.  But  Held  was  not  returned  to 
the  Legislature  in  1913,  while  Young  was  elected 
Speaker.  Clark  of  Oakland  and  Bohnett  of  San  Jose 
were  accordingly  named  at  the  opening  of  the  1913  ses- 
sion to  take  the  places  of  Held  and  Young. 

But  as  was  anticipated  when  the  committee  was 
appointed,  Senator  Wright  did  the  work  and  prepared 
the  draft  of  the  rules.  Copies  of  this  draft  were  sent 
to  the  various  members  of  the  committee  shortly  before 
the  session  opened.  The  rules  thus  presented  were  not 
inappropriately  known  as  the  "Wright  rules." 

The  draft  which  Wright  submitted  to  his  fellow 
committeemen  bore  upon  its  face  evidence  of  great  care 
and  labor  in  preparation.36  No  more  carefully  consid- 
ered set  of  rules  had  ever  been  prepared  for  any  Legis- 
lature. And  the  remarkable  feature  of  them  was,  that, 
although  compiled  by  perhaps  the  most  conservative 
member  of  the  Legislature — the  last,  with  Senator  Finn 
of  San  Francisco,  of  the  group,  who,  at  the  1909  session 

Wright  moved  the  appointment  of  the  committee  on  rules  revision, 
custom  and  courtesy  required  President  Wallace  to  appoint  him 
chairman  of  the  committee.  But  the  custom  of  naming  the  mover 
of  a  motion  to  appoint  a  committee  chairman  of  such  committee, 
is  by  no  means  general,  nor  is  the  courtesy  demand  recognized. 
At  the  1911  session,  for  example,  Senator  Shanahan  moved  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  investigate  conditions  growing  out 
of  the  printing  of  school  text-books.  But  President  Wallace 
appointed  another  to  be  chairman  of  the  committee.  At  the  1913 
session  Senator  Beban  moved  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to 
investigate  white  slavery  scandals.  But  President  Wallace  did 
not  name  Beban  to  be  chairman  of  the  committee. 

so  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  to  secure  data  for  his  work 
Senator  Wright  had  corresponded  with  representatives  of  the 
Legislatures  of  most  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  The  draft  of  the 
rules  which  he  presented  bore  out  the  statement. 


44          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

had  supported  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  combination  on  im- 
portant issues — the  rules  were,  in  one  important  par- 
ticular at  least,  far  in  advance  of  even  the  progressive 
Legislature  of  1913.  So  far  as  the  governing  rules 
could  do  so,  the  checks  and  balances  of  a  two-House 
Legislature  were  eliminated  by  putting  the  committee 
organization  on  what  was  practically  a  one-house  basis.37 

Under  the  prevailing  system,  the  two  Houses  being 
absolutely  independent,  each  House  appoints  its  own 
committees,  which  act  absolutely  independently  of  the 
committees  of  the  other. 

Thus  for  example,  a  bill  affecting  agricultural  inter- 
ests introduced  in  the  Assembly,  goes  to  the  Assembly 
Committee  on  Agriculture. 

Persons  interested  in  the  passage  or  defeat  of  the 
bill  must  present  their  case  before  the  committee.  If 
the  bill  finally  reaches  the  Senate,  it  is  referred  to  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Agriculture.  The  proponents  and 
the  opponents  of  the  measure  must  for  a  second  time  go 
to  Sacramento  and  again  present  their  cases,  this  time 
before  the  Senate  Committee.  These  dual  hearings  un- 
questionably make  a  deal  of  extra  work  for  the  legisla- 
tors, and  impose  avoidable  hardship  and  expense  upon 
those  interested  in  legislation.  Of  late  years,  joint  com- 
mittee hearings  have  grown  in  popularity.  Under  the 
joint  committee  arrangement  where  many  persons  wish 
to  be  heard  on  a  given  bill,  corresponding  committees 


37  Senator  Wright  was  one  of  the  fifteen  Senators  who  voted 
against  the  submission  of  a  Constitutional  amendment  (S.  C.  A. 
No.  73)  to  the  electors,  to  do  away  with  one  House  of  the  Legis- 
lature. See  Senate  Journal,  May  9,  1913.  This  amendment  is  dis- 
cussed in  Chapter  XXIX. 


Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules          45 

fiom  the  two  Houses  meet  in  joint  session,  thus  obvi- 
ating the  necessity  of  two  independent  hearings. 

The  Wright  rules  provided  for  the  appointment  of 
thirty-four  committees  made  up  of  both  Senators  and 
Assemblymen,  to  do  the  committee  work  of  both 
Houses.  To  each  committee  were  to  be  appointed  two 
more  Assemblymen  than  Senators.  The  first  Senator 
named  was  to  act  as  chairman  of  the  committee  to 
which  he  had  been  appointed;  the  first  Assemblyman 
named  was  to  be  vice-chairman.  It  was  further  pro- 
vided, however,  that  any  of  the  committees  could  re- 
organize by  electing  its  own  chairman  and  vice-chair- 
man. Thus,  at  any  time  it  would  have  been  possible  for 
the  Assemblymen  of  the  committee,  being  in  majority 
control,  to  force  reorganization  by  naming  both  chairman 
and  vice-chairman. 

The  arguments  used  for  and  against  the  proposed 
radical  change  in  committee  organization  were  neither 
strong  nor  convincing. 

Senator  Wright  urged,  for  example,  that  inasmuch 
as  there  are  not  at  the  State  Capitol  sufficient  commit- 
tee rooms  to  accommodate  committee  organization  of 
both  Houses,  the  proposed  change  should  be  accepted. 
But  it  is  clearly  the  duty  of  the  State  to  house  its  Leg- 
islature properly.  If  the  available  committee  rooms  are 
not  sufficient,  then  more  committee  rooms  should  be 
provided. 

On  the  other  hand,  opponents  of  the  proposed  change 
seriously  contended  that  committee  chairmen  would,  un- 
der such  an  arrangement,  lose  their  importance.  The 
conserving  of  the  importance  of  committee  chairmen  was 


46          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

apparently  deemed  of  greater  moment  than  effective 
organization. 

The  chief  consideration  in  favor  of  the  change, 
however,  a  consideration  which  probably  did  not  occur 
even  to  Senator  Wright  himself,  was  that  a  two-house 
Legislature  has  proved  unwieldy  and  ineffective,  and 
anything  which  promises  relief  is  worthy  of  attention. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  State  Constitution  provides 
for  a  two-house  Legislature.  Under  the  proposed  rules, 
Senate  and  Assembly  would  have  entered  into  a  com- 
pact to  ignore,  so  far  as  lay  in  their  power,  this  con- 
stitutional provision.  Until  the  Constitution  be  changed, 
the  conservative  and  even  the  radical  urged,  independent 
organization  of  the  two  Houses  should  be  maintained. 

The  single  committee  organization  feature  of  the 
Wright  rules  was  finally  rejected.  Nevertheless,  the 
joint  rules  governing  the  two  Houses,  as  finally  adopted, 
contained  several  features  which  had  their  origin  in  the 
discussion. 

(1)  It  was  definitely  provided  that  twenty-six  iden- 
tical standing  committees  should  be  appointed  by  each 
House.88 

(2)  Definite  provision  was  made  for  joint  meetings 
of  Senate  and  Assembly  committees  to  consider  identical 
measures  pending  before  corresponding  committees  of 
the  two  Houses.89 

38  The  twenty-six  committees  were  Agriculture,  Banking,  Com- 
merce and  Navigation,  Corporations,  County  Government,  Drain- 
age, Swamp  and  Overflowed  Lands,  Education,  Elections,  Federal 
Relations,  Finance  in  the  Senate  and  Ways  and  Means  in  the 
Assembly,  Fish  and  Game,  Hospitals  and  Asylums,  Insurance, 
Irrigation,  Judiciary,  Labor  and  Capital,  Military  Affairs,  Mines 
and  Mining,  Municipal  Corporations,  Oil  Industries,  Public  Health 
and  Quarantine,  Public  Morals,  Prisons  and  Reformatories,  Reve- 
nue and  Taxation,  Roads  and  Highways,  Rules. 

so  See  Joint  Rule  No.  33,  session  1913. 


Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules          47 

(3)  Two  joint  standing  committees  of  Senate  and 
Assembly  were  actually  provided  for: 

(a)  Committee  on  Revision  and  Printing  to  consist 
of  three  Senators  and  five  Assemblymen.40 

(b)  Committee    on    Joint    Rules    to   consist    of   the 
members  of  the  rules  committee  of  each  House. 

The  discussion  created  by  the  proposed  departure  in 
committee  organization  not  only  resulted  in  significant 
change  in  committee  arrangements,  but  brought  out 
the  weak  features  of  the  two-house  legislative  system. 
Discussion  of  the  possibilities  of  a  one-house  body  had 
been  started,  which  may  eventually  have  far-reaching 
effect. 

40  This  committee  was  given  extraordinary  powers.  No.  30, 
of  the  Joint  Rules  provided  that,  "unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the 
House  in  which  the  bill  was  introduced,  all  bills  before  being 
printed  shall  be  immediately  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Revision 
and  Printing.  The*  committee,  by  and  with  the  written  assent  of 
the  author  filed  with  it,  shall  have  authority  to  correct  any  clerical 
error  such  as  in  orthography,  adding  or  correcting  the  enacting 
clause,  mistakes  in  numbering  sections  and  references  thereto, 
errors  in  grammar,  phraseology,  or  in  the  form  of  the  bill." 

The  powers  given  this  committee  were,  in  the  draft  of  the  rules 
submitted  to  Senate  and  Assembly,  even  more  drastic.  The  pro- 
visions of  the  original  draft  were: 

"Unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  House  in  which  the  bill  was 
introduced,  all  bills  before  being  printed  shall  be  referred  to  Com- 
mittee on  Revision  and  Printing  for  correction  of  errors.  The  com- 
mittee shall  have  jurisdiction  to  correct  any  mere  clerical  error, 
such  as  in  orthography,  adding  the  enacting  clause  to  a  bill  when 
such  has  been  omitted,  and  all  mistakes  in  numbering  sections  and 
references  thereto,  and  by  and  with  the  written  assent  of  the 
author  filed  with  the  committee,  to  correct  errors  in  grammar, 
phraseology  and  to  otherwise  alter  the  text  of  the  bill. 

"If  upon  comparison  by  the  Committee  on  Revision  and  Printing 
it  be  found  that  two  bills,  one  of  which  has  been  introduced 
in  the  Senate  and  the  other  in  the  Assembly,  are  in  all  material 
respects  the  same  in  substance  and  words,  such  bills,  unless  other- 
wise ordered  by  the  committee,  shall  be  considered  companion 
bills  and  printed  jointly  as  of  both  Houses.  If  first  introduced  in 
the  Senate,  the  bill  shall  be  printed  with  the  appropriate  Senate 
heading  at  the  top,  giving  number  of  bill,  name  of  author,  date 
of  introduction  and  committee  reference.  Following  this  shall  be 
a  corresponding  Assembly  heading,  after  which  shall  follow  the 
title  of  the  Act,  the  enacting  clause  and  text  of  the  bill.  If  the 
bill  is  first  introduced  in  the  Assembly  the  position  of  the  Senate 
and  Assembly  headings  shall  be  reversed." 


48          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

Another  addition  to  the  rules,  proposed  after  the 
original  draft  had  been  submitted  to  the  committee, 
would,  had  it  been  adopted,  have  relieved  the  members 
of  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  responsibility  of  dealing 
with  newspaper  writers  who  may  prove  objectionable 
to  members  of  either  body. 

The  printing  of  facts — or  even  gathering  data — 
which  reflect  upon  members  of  the  Legislature,  is  not 
at  all  pleasing  to  some  members.  At  the  1909  session, 
for  example,  George  B.  Anderson,  Secretary  of  The 
People's  Legislative  Bureau,  and  acting  as  correspondent 
for  several  small  papers  printed  in  country  districts,  was 
denied  admittance  to  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  and  inci- 
dentally of  the  Senate,41  primarily  because  he  had  ad- 
dressed a  letter  42  to  a  member  of  the  San  Francisco 
delegation,  inquiring  why  the  member  in  question  had 
been  absent  when  a  vote  affecting  the  Walker-Otis  Anti- 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill  had  been  taken. 

At  the  1907  session,  Ed.  J.  Livernash,  correspondent 
for  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  was  denied  press  privi- 
leges, because  of  that  writer's  criticism  of  the  methods 
of  "machine"-dominated  members  who  were  in  con- 
trol.43 But  such  rulings  have  been  rare.  They  are 
usually  unjust.  In  every  case  they  have  brought  criti- 
cism and  condemnation  upon  the  members  responsible. 
Besides,  there  have  been  times  in  the  history  of  the 
California  Legislature  when  to  be  an  unpopular  writer 

41  See    "Story   of   the    California    Legislature   of   1909,"    Chapter 
XXI. 

42  See   "Story   of   the    California   Legislature   of   1909,"    footnote 
99,   page  221. 

43  Had  Mr.   Livernash's  statements  been  false,   action   for  libel, 
both  criminal  and  civil,  would  have  held  against  him  and  against 
his  paper.     But  nf   such  suits  were  instituted. 


Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules          49 

at  Sacramento  has  not  necessarily  brought  the  blush  of 
shame  to  the  undesirable  one's  cheek. 

However,  there  are  at  every  session  persons  who 
secure  press  privileges  who  are  unquestionably  unde- 
serving of  them.  They  may  be  divided  into  two  classes : 

(1)  Newspaper  writers  who  abuse  the  privileges  of 
the  floor  by   wandering  from   desk  to  desk  while  the 
House  is  in  session,  taking  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bers whom  they  engage  in  conversation,  and  annoying 
the  entire  Senate  or  Assembly  with  arrogant  assumption 
of  special  privilege.    This  class  engages  in  more  or  less 
lobbying.      During  the   old   "machine"    rule    such   men 
practically  had  the  run  of  the  floor.     During  the  1909 
session,  for  example,  the  lobbying  of  one  writer  against 
wholesome  provisions  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill  of  that 
year  became  notorious. 

(2)  Men  who  do  not  do  legitimate  newspaper  work, 
but  who  go  to  Sacramento  each  session  to  oppose  or 
promote  the  passage  of  given  measures,  and  secure  ad- 
mittance to  the  floor  by  representing  themselves  to  be 
newspaper  writers. 

The  Legislature  could  very  readily  reach  such  per- 
sons by  adopting  rules  to  exclude  them  from  Senate  and 
Assembly  floor — and  enforcing  such  rules. 

But  members  of  the  Legislature  do  not  care  to  as- 
sume responsibility  for  such  reasonable  action.  Under 
the  method  proposed,  the  legislators  were  relieved  of 
this  responsibility. 

The  proposed  rule 4*  provided   for  a  committee  of 

44  The  rule  as  proposed  read:  "Such  applicant  (to  be  a  press 
representative)  shall  be  authenticated  by  a  committee  of  not  less 
than  three  press  representatives  from  each  House,  who  shall  be 


50          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

newspapermen  to  authenticate  the  credentials  of  all  ap- 
plicants for  admittance  to  the  floor  as  newspaper  writers. 
This  committee  was  expected  to  do  what  the  legislators 
apparently  did  not  wish  to  do,  exclude  those  who  might 
be  deemed  undesirable. 

But  it  was  asked  where  would  the  line  between  the 
desirable  and  undesirable  be  drawn?  The  legislators 
themselves — however  machine-ridden  they  might  be — 
might  hesitate  before  daring  to  deny  admittance  to  the 
floor  of  a  newspaper  writer  whose  only  offense  was  the 
stating  of  facts  which  some  members  might  not  like% 
Would  it  be  possible  for  a  bad  Legislature  to  secure  by 
indirection  the  removal  of  such  a  writer,  and  disclaim  all 
responsibility  for  it? 

For  example,  the  admitted  purpose  of  the  proposed 
rule  was  to  put  out  a  man  who  it  was  alleged  did  not 
bathe  regularly.  In  a  Legislature  of  Senators  and  As- 
semblymen who  themselves  might  not  be  addicted  to  the 
bathing  habit,  would  it  be  possible  to  exclude  a  man 
who  did  bathe  regularly? 

This  may  be  taken  both  literally  and  figuratively. 

Another  objection  to  the  proposed  change  was  that 
the  country  press  would  be  hampered  in  sending  news- 
paper writers  to  the  State  Capitol.  That  the  country 

selected  from  correspondents  assigned  by  the  respective  news- 
papers, to  be  present  during  the  session  of  the  Legislature,  and 
such  committee  shall  be  selected  by  duly  accredited  press  repre- 
sentatives. Such  Press  Committee  shall  not  authenticate  any 
application  not  signed  by  a  bona  fide  correspondent  of  a  bona 
fide  newspaper  engaged  in  reporting  and  publishing  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Legislature.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  of 
the  Senate  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  to  assign  one  or  more 
rooms  for  the  exclusive  use  of  correspondents  during  the  legisla- 
tive session,  which  room  shall  be  known  as  the  press  room.  The 
press  room  shall  be  under  the  control  of  the  Press  Committee, 
provided  that  all  rules  and  regulations  shall  be  approved  by  the 
President  of  the  Senate  and  Speaker  of  the  House." 


Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules          51 

newspapers  might  object — not  unreasonably — to  having 
the  credentials  of  their  correspondents  submitted  to  a 
committee  of  metropolitan  newspapermen,  was  regarded 
as  probable.  At  any  rate,  objection  came  in  each 
House  to  the  delegating  of  powers  which  are  essentially 
those  of  the  Legislature  itself. 

In  the  Assembly,  Wyllie  made  strong  protest  against 
any  such  rule  being  adopted.  "It  has  been  offered  as 
excuse  for  this  rule,"  said  Wyllie,  "that  it  has  been 
taken  from  those  governing  in  Congress.  If  that  be  so, 
I  consider  it  a  very  good  reason  for  rejecting  this  pro- 
posed change."  Assemblyman  Sutherland  defended  the 
rule,  however,  stating  his  belief  that  it  was  a  good  one. 

The  Senate,  after  extended  discussion,  decided  on 
Senator  Larkins'  motion  that  the  rule  should  be  rejected. 

"There  is  no  good  reason,"  said  Senator  Larkins, 
"why  this  Chamber  should  not  be  open  to  the  press. 
We  want  no  newspaper  trust.  The  only  way  The  People 
have  of  getting  the  news  is  through  the  newspapers. 
Let  the  newspaper  correspondents  be  free  to  come  here." 

Senator  Curtin  attacked  the  rule,  questioning  not 
only  its  desirability,  but  its  constitutionality.  He  held 
that  the  Legislature  has  no  constitutional  right  to  dele- 
gate its  powers  to  an  outside  committee  to  determine 
who  shall  act  as  legislative  correspondents.  Senator 
Curtin  also  showed  the  injustice  of  such  a  rule  to  the 
country  press. 

Senator  Caminetti  backed  up  Larkins  and  Curtin, 
insisting  there  is  no  good  reason  for  putting  into  the 
hands  of  three  men,  outside  the  Legislature,  power  to 
say  what  newspapermen  are  entitled  to  places  on  the 
floor. 


52          Proposed  Revision  of  the  Rules 

Senator  Wright,  however,  defended  the  rule,  declar- 
ing it  to  be  desirable.  But  Senator  Wright  and  Assem- 
blyman Sutherland  received  small  backing.  The  legis- 
lators retained  in  their  own  hands  the  power  to  pass 
upon  newspapermen's  credentials.45 

But  each  Legislature  has  the  power  to  fix  its  own 
rules.  At  future  sessions — the  prediction  is  safe — sim- 
ilar attempts  to  shift  responsibility  for  keeping  inde- 
pendent newspaper  writers  off  the  floor  will  be  made. 
And  may — indeed,  almost  to  a  certainty,  will — be  suc- 
cessful. The  right  of  the  press — it  should  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  privilege — to  free  access  to  all  legislative 
gatherings,  cannot  be  too  jealously  guarded. 

The  rules  finally  adopted  were — with  few  changes 
which  were  for  the  most  part  for  the  better — practi- 
cally the  same  as  those  which  had  governed  at  former 
sessions. 


45  The  rules  governing  the  press  which  were  finally  adopted 
were  entirely  new.  They  were  as  follows: 

"A  person  desiring  recognition  by  the  Senate  or  Assembly  as  a 
newspaper  correspondent  shall  make  application  in  writing  to  the 
President  of  the  Senate  or  Speaker  of  the  Assembly. 

"(a)  The  applicant  shall  state  in  writing  the  name  of  the 
newspaper  or  newspapers  he  represents  and  that  he  is  not  en- 
gaged, and  will  not  become  engaged  as  a  lobbyist  for  any  person, 
copartnership,  corporation  or  interest  and  that  he  is  not  and  will 
not  become  the  agent  or  representative  of  any  person,  copartner- 
ship, organization  or  corporation  in  advocating  or  attempting  to 
defeat  any  measure  pending  in  either  branch  of  the  Legislature, 
that  he  is  not  employed  in  any  executive,  administrative,  or  legis- 
lative department  of  the  State  government  and  will  not  become 
so  employed  while  accepting  the  privileges  of  a  press  representa- 
tive. 

"(b)  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the  Senate  and 
the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  to  assign  one  or  more  rooms  for  the 
exclusive  use  of  correspondents  during  the  legislative  session, 
which  room  shall  be  known  as  the  press  room.  The  press  room 
shall  be  under  the  control  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Capitol 
Building  and  Grounds,  provided,  that  all  rules  and  regulations 
shall  be  approved  by  the  President  of  the  Senate  and  Speaker  of 
the  Assembly." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
CALIFORNIA'S  TAXATION   PROBLEM. 

The  1913  Legislature  had  scarcely  convened  before 
it  was  confronted  with  the  problem  of  the  uncertainty 
of  the  State's  finances. 

The  trouble  had  been  foreshadowed  at  the  session 
of  1911.  Chairman  Charles  P.  Cutten  of  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee  of  that  session  pointed  out  repeated- 
ly that  under  the  new  system  of  taxation  sufficient 
revenues  for  State  purposes  would  not  be  raised.46 

By  the  time  the  1913  Legislature  had  assembled, 
practical  demonstration  had  been  made  that  under  the 
new  system  the  public-service  corporations,  immediately 
affected  by  the  change,  were  not  paying  the  same  pro- 
portionate taxes  as  the  other  tax-payers.  As  the  rev- 
enues derived  from  the  corporations  are,  under  the  new 
system,  used  exclusively  for  State  purposes,  it  became 

46  Cutten  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  needs  of  the  State 
would  increase  faster  than  the  gross  incomes  of  the  public  serv- 
ice corporations. 

"The  increase  of  expenditures  in  1911,  over  1905,"  said  Cutten 
In  a  statement  published  in  the  Sacramento  Bee,  Dec.  6,  1911, 
"was  $4,555,571,  or  45.7  per  cent.  The  increase  for  1911  over  1909 
was  $1,111,291,  or  8.282  per  cent.,  the  smallest  increase  for  over 
ten  years,  both  in  percentage  and  amount. 

"The  Tax  Commission  in  its  various  reports  assured  the  Leg- 
islature that  it  could  easily  raise  sufficient  increase  each  year  to 
run  the  State.  But  if  the  Legislature  had  taken  the  early  assur- 
ances of  the  Commission  in  good  faith  and  increased  its  appro- 
priations in  the  same  ratio  as  has  been  done  for  ten  years  past, 
the  State  would  be  now  facing  a  deficit  of  $2,121,346,  instead  of 
$450,000. 

"It  is  my  opinion  that  under  the  present  rates  the  annual 
deficit  will  increase  rather  than  diminish,  as  the  needs  of  the 
State  are  increasing  faster  than  the  revenues  of  the  public- 
service  corporations." 


54  California's  Taxation  Problem 

evident  that  Cutten's  contentions  of  the  previous  year 
had  some  foundation.  Incidentally,  it  may  be  added,  from 
the  beginning,  Cutten  had  not  been  alone  in  his  pre- 
dictions of  the  insufficiency  of  the  new  system. 

The  change  in  the  State's  revenue  system  furnishes 
one  of  the  most  extraordinary  chapters  in  California's 
not  unsensational  political  history.  That  the  change  was 
at  all  possible,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  old  system 
was  notoriously  unsatisfactory. 

Under  the  old  system,  for  all  purposes,  State,  county, 
municipal  and  district,  an  ad  valorem  tax  was  levied 
upon  all  property  liable  to  taxation.  The  system  proved 
inadequate  and  cumbersome,  particularly  in  the  levy  of 
taxes  for  State  purposes. 

The  State  tax  rate  was  the  same  in  all  the  counties. 
The  assessments  upon  which  taxes  were  collected,  how- 
ever, were  made  by  county  assessors.  In  one  county 
the  assessments  might  be  fixed  at  60  per  cent,  of  the 
actual  value  of  the  property;  in  a  second  county  the 
assessment  might  be  30  per  cent.  This  would  mean 
that  the  tax-payer  of  the  first  county  paid  double  the 
State  tax  paid  by  the  tax-payer  of  the  second  county. 
To  be  sure,  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  attempted 
each  year  to  equalize  assessments  as  between  counties. 
But  the  acts  of  the  equalizers  were  more  fruitful  of 
scandal  and  harsh  feeling  than  of  practical  results. 

Another  serious  defect  of  the  system  was  that  under 
it  equitable  assessment  of  public-service  corporations 
and  other  representatives  of  large  aggregations  of 
wealth  became  practically  impossible.  That  large  inter- 
ests were  able  to  evade  payment  of  their  just  share  of 
the  public  revenues  was  notorious.  To  evade  such  pay- 


California's  Taxation  Problem  55 

ment,  by  taking  advantage  of  the  weakness  of  the 
system,  it  was  necessary  for  these  interests  to  influ- 
ence,47 if  not  control,  State  Boards  of  Equalization  and 
County  Assessors.48  This  brought  these  interests  "into 
politics"  in  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  counties  of  the  State. 
But  even  where  Assessors  were  free  of  corporation  con- 
trol, the  inadequate  machinery  at  their  disposal  to  hunt 
out  property,  upon  which  powerful  interests  might  seek 
to  evade  taxation,  made  equitable  taxation  under  the 

47  "In   some   form   or  another,"   said    Governor  Johnson   In   his 
Inaugural    address,     January,    1911,     "nearly    every    governmental 
problem    that    Involves    the    health,    the    happiness,    or    the    pros- 
perity of  the  State,  has  arisen,  because  some  private  interest  has 
intervened  or  has   sought  for   its   own   gain   to   exploit   either  the 
resources   or  the  politics   of  the   State." — See  Appendix   "Story  of 
the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  I. 

48  The    close    connection    between    the    county   assessors'    offices 
and   the    tax   departments   of   the   various   public    service   corpora- 
tions   is   suggestively   shown   in   the   associate   membership   list   of 
the  County  Assessors'   Association  of   California.     The   association 
meets  annually  to  consider  problems  of  assessment  and  taxation. 
The   associate   members   meet  with   the   assessors    to   advise   with 
them.     Among  the  associate  members  at  the  Association's  meeting 
at    Los   Angeles    in    December,    1912,    were:      W.    W.    Brison,    Tax 
Agent,    Southern    Sierras   Power   Company;    Chas.    E.    Jewett,    Tax 
Agent,   The  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Railway;  A.  O.  Adams, 
Tax   Agent,    Los   Angeles    Railway;    Geo.    B.    Springer,    Tax   Agent, 
Northern   Electric   Railway;   J.   Fred   Traggardh,    Tax  Agent,   J.    D. 
Spreckels  Companies  of  San  Diego;  F.  A.  Waters,  Tax  Agent,  San 
Pedro,    Los  Angeles   &   Salt  Lake   Railroad;    Frank   Mattison,    Tax 
Agent,    Sierra   and    San   Francisco   Power  Company;    J.    L.    Smith, 
Tax  Agent,  Western  Pacific  Railway;  Wm.   H.  Kline,   Tax  Agent, 
Pacific    Gas    and    Electric;    C.    J.    Hall,    Tax   Agent,    Pacific   Tele- 
phone and  Telegraph;  Alex.  Brown,   President  State  Tax  Associa- 
tion;  T.   C.   Coogan,   Attorney  The  Pullman   Company;   D.   V.   Cow- 
den,  Tax  Attorney,  Southern  Pacific  Company;   Al  W.   Baker,  As- 
sistant Tax  Attorney,   Southern  Pacific  Company;  J.  Harry  Scott, 
George  E.   Mitchell,   E.  A.   De  Camp,   General  Tax  Agents. 

Jere  Burke  and  Walter  Parker  were,  during  the  days  of  their 
political  activity,  closely  identified  with  the  Association,  as  asso- 
ciate members.  At  its  1912  meeting,  the  Association  adopted  the 
following  resolutions: 

"Whereas,  It  has  pleased  an  All  Wise  Providence  to  take  from 
us  our  cherished  friends,  .  .  .  and  also  Associate  Members, 
J.  T.  Burke,  A.  P.  Maginnis  and  W.  F.  Parker;  and 

"Whereas,  Through  the  intimacy  of  long  personal  and  official 
association,  we  have  had  unusual  opportunity  to  know  them  as 
citizens,  as  officials,  as  friends  and  as  men,  and  have  always 


56  California's  Taxation  Problem 

old  system  a  practical  impossibility.49  The  public  was, 
therefore,  eager  to  accept  any  change  which  might 
promise  relief. 

In  response  to  the  growing  demand  for  a  more  prac- 
tical taxation  system,  the  Legislature  of  1905  passed  an 
Act  providing  for  a  commission 50  "to  investigate  the 
system  of  revenue  and  taxation  in  force  in  this  State 
and  to  recommend  a  plan  for  the  revision  and  reform 
thereof."  The  appointment  of  an  expert  in  taxation  and 
public  finance  was  also  authorized,  his  compensation  not 
to  exceed  $250  a  month.  The  members  of  the  com- 
mission, other  than  the  chairman,  were  to  be  paid  $10 
a  day  and  their  necessary  expenses  "when  actually  en- 
found  them  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  their  trusts;  therefore, 
be  it: 

"Resolved,  That  in  their  demise  this  Association  and  the  people 
of  California  have  met  with  a  great  and  distinct  loss. 

"Be  it  further  Resolved,  That  we  extend  to  their  families  and 
friends  our  sincere  sympathy. 

"Be  it  further  Resolved,  That  these  resolutions  be  spread  upon 
the  minutes  of  the  Association." 

Incidentally,  it  may  be  added  that  these  resolutions  have  been 
printed  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  and  are  distributed  at  the 
expense  of  the  State. 

49  At  the  legislative  session  of  1909  Sanford  of  Ukiah  introduced 
bills  to  provide  the  machinery  by  which  assessors  would  be  able 
to  hunt  out  wealth  concealed  from  the  tax  collector.  Immediately 
a  powerful  lobby  appeared  at  Sacramento  in  opposition  to  these 
bills.  The  county  assessors  were  among  the  most  persistent 
opponents.  It  was  held  at  the  time,  however,  that  the  assessors 
had  proceeded  on  representations  made  to  them  that  the  bills  were 
vicious  and  had  acted  without  knowledge  of  their  purpose. 

so  The  paragraph  authorizing  the  Commission  was  curiously 
worded.  Under  it,  the  Legislature,  and  not  the  Governor,  as  is 
customary  in  such  cases,  appointed.  "If  and  when,"  the  paragraph 
read,  "the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  thirty-sixth  session  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  shall  provide  for  the 
appointment,  and  there  shall  be  appointed  pursuant  to  said  pro- 
vision, a  joint  committee  of  said  Senate  and  Assembly  to  investi- 
gate the  system  of  revenue  and  taxation  in  force  in  this  State, 
and  to  recommend  a  plan  for  the  revision  and  reform  thereof,  the 
Governor  is  authorized  to  appoint  an  expert  in  taxation  and  public 
finance,  to  sit  with  said  committee,  and  with  said  committee  to 
constitute  a  Commission  upon  the  revision  and  reform  of  the 
system  of  revenue  and  taxation  in  force  in  this  State.  The 
Governor  shall  be  ex  offlcio  a  member  of  said  Commission  and 
shall  be  chairman  thereof." 


California's  Taxation  Problem  57 

gaged  in  the  performance  of  their  duties."  To  carry 
on  the  work,  an  appropriation  of  $10,000  was  made. 

Acting  under  the  provisions  of  this  law,  the  1905 
Legislature  authorized  the  appointment  of  a  joint  legis- 
lative committee,  or  commission,  of  four,  two  Senators 
to  be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Senate,  and  two 
Assemblymen  to  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker  of  the 
lower  House.51 

This  commission  reported  to  the  Legislature  of  1907. 

The  commissioners  were  a  unit  in  finding  that  the 
existing  system  of  taxation  did  not  equally  distribute 
the  burden  of  taxation  and  that  the  burden  could  not 
equally  be  distributed  by  an  ad  valorem  system.  They 
held  the  burden  could  be  more  equally  distributed  by 
separating  the  revenues  of  the  State  and  county  so  that 


ci  The  Commission  appointed  consisted  of  Senators  J.  B.  Curtin 
and  M.  L.  Ward;  Assemblymen  H.  S.  G.  McCartney  and  E.  F. 
Treadwell.  Professor  Carl  C.  Plehn  of  the  State  University  was 
appointed  as  expert  on  taxation  and  public  finance.  The  $10,000 
originally  appropriated  for  the  work  proved  insufficient.  The 
Commission  organized  early  in  the  summer  of  1905.  Between  the 
date  of  organization  and  September  10,  1910,  the  Commission's 
expenses,  paid  by  the  State,  were  $21,077.44.  Of  this  amount 
$9,781  went  to  Expert  Plehn  for  his  services  as  expert.  From 
May,  1905,  to  March  9,  1907,  expert  Plehn  was  paid  $200  a  month; 
from  March,  1907,  to  April,  1909,  $250  a  month;  from  July  20,  1910, 
to  Aug.  31,  1910,  $250  per  month.  In  addition  to  this  $21,077.44, 
$20,000  was  paid  to  the  four  Commissioners.  Special  Acts  were 
passed  at  the  1907  session  of  the  Legislature,  to  pay  the  claims 
of  Ward,  Treadwell,  Curtin  and  McCartney,  for  $2,500  each.  At 
the  1909  session  other  special  Acts  were  passed  to  compensate 
them  further  in  the  sums  of  $2,500  each.  At  the  1911  session,  a 
bill  was  introduced  (Senate  Bill  347,  1911  series)  "to  pay  the 
claim  of  J.  B.  Curtin"  for  $6,000.  The  bill  passed  both  Houses. 
Governor  Johnson,  however,  failed  to  sign  it.  Senator  Curtin  did 
not  get  the  $6,000.  At  the  1913  session  a  Bill  (Senate  Bill  374, 
1913  series)  was  introduced  to  pay  the  claim  of  Senator  Curtin 
for  $7,750.  The  Bill  passed  both  Houses.  Governor  Johnson  once 
more  failed  to  sign  it.  Up  to  date,  therefore,  the  expense  to  the 
State  of  the  Commission  responsible  for  the  change  in  the  taxa- 
tion system  has  been  $41,077.44,  more  than  four  times  the  original 
appropriation  of  $10,000.  The  allowance  of  Senator  Curtin's  claim 
by  some  future  Legislature — unless  it  be  further  increased — will 
swell  the  amount  to  $48,827.44,  instead  of  the  $10,000  originally 
appropriated. 


58  California's  Taxation  Problem 

the  State  would  get  its  revenue  from  public-service 
companies  and  other  corporations,  and  the  counties  their 
revenue  from  the  remaining  property.82 

To  that  end,  a  constitutional  amendment  was  recom- 
mended for  the  separation  of  State  and  local  taxes. 
The  draft  of  such  an  amendment  was  submitted  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Legislature. 

The  1907  Legislature,  after  amending  the  measure 
to  meet  the  views  of  the  several  members,  submitted 
this  amendment  to  the  electors  for  ratification. 

The  electors  refused  to  ratify  it.  The  commission's 
plan,  as  expressed  in  the  amendment,  was  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  87,977  for  the  amendment  to  114,104  against 
it." 

52  The  Commission  recommended,  however,  that  the  State  con- 
tinue to  derive  revenues  from:     (1)  Poll  Tax,   (2)  Inheritance  Tax, 
(3)    Tax   on    Insurance    Premiums,    (4)    Annual    Franchise    Tax    on 
Corporations,   (5)  All  Fees  at  the  Time  Collected,   (6)  All  Earnings 
of   State    Property   and    Investments,    (7)    All    Collections    by   State 
Institutions,    (8)   The  Revenue  from  Sale  of  State  Land. 

The  Commission  further  recommended  that  the  State  retain  Its 
right  to  levy  on  general  property,  but  that  such  levy  should  be 
resorted  to  only  to  make  good  a  deficit. 

53  The  Commission  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  in  its  1910  report 
states    that    the    four    principal    defects    urged    against    the    1907 
amendment  were: 

(1)  Under  the  amendment,   if  the  revenues  of  the  State  to  be 
derived   from   the   operation    of   the   new   system   were    insufficient, 
there    would    be    no    way    of    meeting    the    deficit    without    again 
amending    the    Constitution,    and    therefore    the    amendment    was 
deemed  too  inflexible. 

(2)  Its  provisions  were  held  not  to  be  clear  as   to  whether  or 
not    public    service    corporations    were    exempt    from    paying    their 
share    of    past    bonded    indebtedness,    and    as    many    counties    had 
Incurred  a  bonded  indebtedness  and  did  so  upon  the  faith  that  all 
the  property   then   in   the   counties   and   cities,    respectively,    would 
be  subject  to  taxation  for  its  fair  share  of  that  indebtedness,    to 
relieve    those    public    service    corporations    of     that    indebtedness 
would,  it  was  thought,  shift  too  great  a  burden  upon  the  remain- 
ing property. 

(3)  That  if  a  deficiency  ad  valorem  tax  should  ever  be  neces- 
sary,   the    corporations    taxed    for    State    purposes    would    not    be 
required   to   pay  any  portion   of   this   deficiency,    but  it  would    fall 
on    the    remaining   property    taxed   for   county   purposes,    and    this 
was   deemed  unfair  and   regarded  as  an   objection   to   the   amend- 
ment. 

(4)  That    no    provision    was    made    for    changing    any    of    the 


California's  Taxation  Problem  59 

The  commission,  after  the  defeat  of  the  amendment 
of  1907,  presented  a  second  amendment,  which  was  con- 
sidered, and  finally  submitted  to  the  electors,  by  the 
Legislature  of  1909.64 

The  amendment  as  submitted  to  the  electors  relieved 
all  property — except  the  operative  property  of  public- 
service  corporations  made  subject  to  a  tax  on  their 
gross  earnings — of  taxes  for  State  purposes,  but  exacted 
from  such  property  all  taxes  for  county,  municipal  or 
district  purposes. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  the  operative  property  of  the 
companies  made  subject  to  a  tax  on  gross  earnings, 
namely,  railroad  companies,  including  street  railroads, 
car  companies,  express  companies,  telephone  and  tele- 
graph companies,  and  light,  power  and  heat  companies, 
was  exempted  from  local,  county,  municipal  and  district 
taxation.  In  lieu  of  this  exemption  the  companies 


rates  should  it  be  found  that  the  rates,  were  inadequate  or  in  any 
manner  unfair,  and  for  that  reason  again  the  amendment  was 
deemed  too  inflexible. 

54  The  Senate  vote  (1909  session)  by  which  the  Revenue  and 
Taxation  Amendment  was  submitted  was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Anthony,  Bates,  Bills,  Birdsall, 
Black,  Burnett,  Campbell,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Hare, 
Hartman,  Hurd,  Kennedy,  Leavitt,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  McCartney, 
Miller,  Relly,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Savage,  Stetson,  Stro- 
bridge,  Thompson,  Walker,  Weed,  Welch,  Wolfe,  and  Wright — 33. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Bell,  Boynton  and  Cami- 
netti— 3. 

The  vote  on  the  amendment  in  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  amendment — Assemblyman  Barndollar,  Baxter,  Beards - 
lee,  Beatty,  Beban,  Butler,  Callan,  Cattell,  Coghlan,  Cogswell, 
Collier,  Collum,  Costar,  Cullen,  Drew,  Feeley,  Fiavelle,  Fleisher, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  Gillis,  Greer,  Griffiths,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans, 
Hawk,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Holmquist,  Johnson  of  San  Diego, 
Johnston  of  Contra  Costa,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Leeds,  Lightner, 
Macauley,  McClellan,  McManus,  Melrose,  Moore,  Nelson,  Odom, 
Otis,  Ferine,  Preston,  Pugh,  Rech,  Sackett,  Silver,  Stanton, 
Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Transue,  Wagner,  Wheelan,  Whitney,  Wyllie, 
Young— 60. 

Against  the  amendment — Assemblymen  Dean,  Irwin,  Johnson  of 
Sacramento,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Maher,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley, 
and  Wilson — 9. 


60  California's  Taxation  Problem 

affected  were  required  to  pay  a  percentage  tax  upon 
their  gross  earnings,  as  follows: 

Railroad  companies,  including  street  railroads — 4 
per  cent. 

Car  companies — 3  per  cent. 

Express  companies — 2  per  cent. 

Telegraph  and  telephone  companies — Zl/2  per  cent. 

Light,  heat  and  power  companies — 4  per  cent. 

In  addition,  the  insurance  companies  were  made 
subject  to  a  State  tax  of  \l/2  per  cent,  of  their  gross 
premiums;  their  real  estate  to  continue  subject  to  an 
ad  valorem  tax  for  local  purposes.  But  the  further 
provision  was  made  that  the  amount  paid  as  local  taxes 
should  be  deducted  from  the  amount  of  the  gross  pre- 
mium tax  paid  for  State  purposes. 

Banks  were  assessed  for  State  purposes  six-tenths  of 
one  per  cent,  on  their  capital  stock,  surplus  and  undi- 
vided profits.  Their  real  estate,  however,  was  left  sub- 
ject to  an  ad  valorem  tax  for  local  purposes,  but  pro- 
vision was  made  for  deducting  from  their  capital  stock 
the  assessed  value  of  their  real  estate. 

All  franchises  other  than  those  included  in  the  prop- 
erty taxed  for  State  purposes  were  made  subject  to  an 
ad  valorem  tax  of  one  per  cent,  for  State  purposes. 

After  the  Legislature  had  adjourned,  the  discovery 
was  made  that  the  amendment  as  it  had  been  submitted 
to  the  electors  was  fatally  defective. 

In  describing  how  the  proposed  corporation  taxes  on 
their  gross  receipts  should  be  computed,  the  amendment, 
as  originally  drafted,  provided  that  "the  gross  receipts 
and  gross  premiums  herein  mentioned  shall  be  com- 


California's  Taxation  Problem  61 

puted  for  tlie  year  ending  the  31st  day  of  December, 
prior  to  the  levy  of  such  taxes." 

For  some  reason  unknown,  in  the  amendment  as 
finally  adopted,  the  three  words  in  italics  were  omitted. 
Literally,  then,  in  the  form  in  which  the  amendment 
had  been  submitted  to  the  electors,  the  several  com- 
panies were  to  pay  taxes  on  their  gross  receipts,  not 
for  the  year  as  the  framers  of  the  amendment  had  in- 
tended, but  one  day  only,  December  3 1.55  To  cure  this 
defect,  Governor  Gillett,  early  in  October,  1910,  called 
the  Legislature  into  extraordinary  session. 

In  his  "call,"  the  Governor  provided  that  the  Legis- 
lature should  do  or  not  do  one  thing  and  one  thing 
only,  namely,  correct  the  "uncertainty"  of  the  amend- 
ment as  it  had  been  submitted  to  The  People,  by  incor- 
porating into  it  the  three  missing  words. 

But  no  sooner  had  the  Legislature  convened,  than 
developed  strong  opposition  to  the  proposed  change. 
Members  who  had  voted  for  the  amendment  at  the  reg- 
ular session  were  found  to  be  in  strong  opposition  to 
it.  Demand  that  the  Legislature  go  beyond  the  pre- 


ss This  was  by  no  means  the  only  defect  in  the  amendment, 
if  the  Journals  of  Senate  and  Assembly  are  to  be  taken  in  evi- 
dence. The  State  Constitution  provides  that  when  either  House 
adopts  a  Constitutional  amendment,  the  amendment  shall  be 
printed  in  full  in  the  Journal.  Sub-division  (f)  of  Section  (14)  of 
the  Amendment  as  shown  by  the  Senate  Journal,  provides  that 
the  section  shall  remain  in  force  (the  section  fixed  the  rates  on 
gross  receipts  which  the  public  service  companies  were  to  pay) 
until  changed  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of  each  House  of  the  Legis- 
lature. (See  Senate  Journal  for  March  9,  1909.)  The  Assembly 
Journal  of  March  12,  1909,  shows  that,  as  the  amendment  was 
adopted  in  that  House,  the  change  in  rates  could  be  made  by  a 
two-thirds  vote.  As  certified  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  the 
amendment  provided  for  a  three-fourths  vote.  In  this  particular, 
the  Journals  show  that  the  amendment  as  it  was  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  provided  for  one  thing,  and  as  adopted  by  the  Senate 
for  another.  But  the  form  of  the  amendment  as  adopted  in  the 
Senate  was  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 


62  California's  Taxation  Problem 

vision  of  the  Governor's  call  and  amend  the  measure 
to  meet  the  views  of  the  dissatisfied  members  resulted 
in  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  of  fourteen, 
seven  Senators  and  seven  Assemblymen,  to  determine 
whether  such  amendments  could,  under  the  Governor's 
"call,"  be  made. 

The  committee  reported  back  to  both  Houses  that 
the  sense  of  the  committee  was  that  in  considering 
amendments  to  the  measure,  the  Legislature  was  con- 
fined to  the  "uncertainty"  caused  by  the  omission  of 
the  three  words,  which  were  mentioned  in  the  Gover- 
nor's "call." 

The  report  was  adopted  in  both  Houses,  but  only 
after  extended  debate.  In  the  Senate  it  carried  by  a 
vote  of  27  for  to  10  against.  In  the  Assembly  the 
margin  was  closer,  the  vote  being  35  for  adoption,  and 
33  against. 

But  this  preliminary  defeat  of  those  who  aimed  to 
force  amendment  of  the  measure  by  no  means  settled 
the  question. 

No  sooner  had  the  measure  been  taken  up  in  the 
Senate,  than  Caminetti  offered  an  amendment  to  reduce 
the  vote  by  which  the  Legislature  could  change  the 
corporations'  tax  rates,  from  a  three-fourths  vote  of 
each  House  to  a  two-thirds  vote.56 

56  For  the  importance  of  this  change  see  Chapter  VI.  As  the 
amendment  stood,  the  votes  of  60  Assemblymen  and  30  Senators 
were  required  to  increase  the  rates  paid  by  the  public  service  cor- 
porations on  their  gross  earnings,  should  they  prove  inadequate. 
Under  Caminetti's  amendment  the  increase  could  be  made  by  the 
votes  of  54  Assemblymen  and  27  Senators.  Under  the  provision 
as  it  stood,  11  Senators  or  21  Assemblymen  could  prevent  the  in- 
crease. Few  if  any  sessions  had,  up  to  1910,  been  held  in  Califor- 
nia in  which  the  corporations  had  not  controlled  that  number  in 
one  House  or  the  other.  Under  the  Caminetti  amendment,  to  pre- 
vent increase  in  their  rates,  the  corporations  would  have  had  to 
control  14  Senators  or  27  Assemblymen.  It  is  important  to  re- 


California's  Taxation  Problem  63 

Senator  E.  I.  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco  was  pre- 
siding. Wolfe  ruled  Caminetti's  amendment  out  of 
order,  on  the  ground  that  under  the  Governor's  "call" 
convening  the  extra  session,  no  amendments  were  in 
order  except  such  as  were  specifically  referred  to  in 
the  "call." 

Caminetti  appealed  from  Wolfe's  ruling,  but  Wolfe 
was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  23  to  II.57 

The  same  question  came  up  in  the  Assembly,  but  in 
a  different  way,  with  a  different  result. 

When  the  Assembly  convened  on  the  second  day 
of  the  extra  session,  before  the  amendment  was  taken 
up  for  consideration,  the  vote  by  which  the  findings  of 
the  committee  of  fourteen  had  been  adopted,  was  re- 
scinded.68 This  meant  that  the  Assembly  would  not 
confine  itself  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  Governor's  "call," 


member,  too,  that  the  Assembly  Journal  record  shows  the  Assem- 
bly had  never  authorized  the  three-fourths  vote,  but  had  adopted 
the  amendment  with  the  two-thirds  vote  provision.  See  Assem- 
bly Journal  for  March  12,  1909.  The  same  votes  governed  in  re- 
ducing the  gross  receipts  rates  paid  by  the  corporations. 

57  The  vote  by  which  Wolfe's  ruling  was  sustained  was: 
To  sustain  Wolfe's  ruling — Anthony,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black, 
Curtin,    Cutten,    Estudillo,   Finn,   Hartman,    Leavitt,    Lewis,   Marti- 
nelli,    McCartney,    Miller,    Price,    Reily,    Rush,    Strobridge,    Weed, 
Welch,   Willis   and  Wright— 23. 

Against  Wolfe's  ruling — Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cart- 
wright,  Hare,  Kurd,  Kennedy,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  Thompson,  and 
Walker— 11. 

68  The  vote  by  which  this  action  was  taken  was  as  follows: 
To  rescind — Barndollar,  Baxter,  Beardslee,  Beatty,  Bohnett, 
Callan,  Cattell,  Collier,  Collum,  Costar,  Cronin,  Drew,  Feeley, 
Fleisher,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Gibbons,  Greer,  Hanlon,  Hayes,  Hewitt, 
Hinkle,  Johnson  of  San  Diego,  Johnston  of  Contra  Costa,  Juilliard. 
Kehoe,  Leeds,  Lightner,  Maher,  McClellan,  Melrose,  Moore,  Nel- 
son, Odom,  Otis,  Ferine,  Polsley,  Preston,  Sackett,  Schmitt,  Silver, 
Stanton,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Transue,  Wagner,  Wheelan,  Whit- 
ney, Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young — 51. 

Against  rescinding — Beban,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Cullen,  Dean, 
Gillis,  Griffiths,  Hopkins,  Johnson  of  Placer,  Macauley,  McManus, 
Mendenhall,  O'Neill,  Pulcifer,  and  Webber— 15. 


64  California's  Taxation  Problem 

but  would  proceed  to  amend  the  measure  in  any  way 
which  it  might  deem  proper. 

This  left  the  Assembly  committed  to  a  policy  to 
make  any  amendment  it  saw  fit ;  and  the  Senate  bound 
by  Wolfe's  ruling  to  consider  only  amendments  author- 
ized in  the  Governor's  "call."  The  situation  was  further 
complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  Senate  had,  by  a  vote 
of  11  to  23,  upheld  Wolfe's  ruling.  For  a  time  serious 
deadlock  between  the  two  Houses  threatened. 

The  Assembly  proceeded  to  make  far-reaching 
changes  in  the  amendment.  The  most  important  was 
that  which  had  been  offered  by  Caminetti  in  the  Senate, 
decreasing  the  vote  by  which  the  corporations'  tax  rates 
could  be  increased,  from  a  vote  of  three-fourths  the 
membership  of  each  House  to  a  two-thirds  vote.  An- 
other amendment,  which  caused  much  discussion  and 
protest,  increased  the  tax  rate  to  be  paid  by  banks  on 
their  capital  stock,  surplus  and  undivided  profits,  from 
six-tenths  of  one  per  cent,  to  one  per  cent. 

The  Senate  was  forced  into  a  position  where  it 
was  compelled  to  recede  from  its  action  in  supporting 
Wolfe's  ruling,  or  refuse  to  concur  in  the  Assembly 
amendments.  This  last  course,  provided  the  Assembly 
did  not  recede,  which  it  gave  no  indication  of  doing, 
would  mean  defeat  of  the  purpose  for  which  the  extra 
session  had  been  called.  The  Senate  finally  referred  the 
question  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.  The  com- 
mittee in  effect  sustained  the  policy  adopted  by  the 
Assembly.59 

59  The  question  put  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  was: 
"Can    this    Legislature    under   the    law   amend,    in    any    respect 
within  the  subject  therein  embraced,  Senate  Constitutional  Amend-> 


California's  Taxation  Problem  65 

The  adoption  of  the  committee's  report  meant  re- 
versal of  the  Senate's  action  in  sustaining-  Wolfe's 
ruling.  Nevertheless,  the  report,  although  never  put  to 
formal  vote,  was  in  effect  adopted. 

The  Senate  then  took  up  the  question  of  concurring 
in  the  first  of  the  Assembly  amendments.  Willis  made 
the  point  of  order  that  the  amendment  was  not  in  accord 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Governor's  "call."  This  was 
the  position  which  Wolfe  had  taken  when  ruling  Cam- 
inetti's  offered  amendment  out  of  order.  Nevertheless, 
Wolfe  declared  Willis  out  of  order,  thereby  reversing 
his  ruling  of  the  day  before.60 


ment  No.  1,  as  set  forth  In  words  and  figures  In  the  proclamation 
of  the  Governor  convening  this  extraordinary  session?" 

The  committee's  report  read: 

"Tour  Committee  on  Judiciary,  to  which  was  submitted  the 
question,  'Can  this  Legislature  under  the  law  amend,  in  any  re- 
spect within  the  subject  therein  embraced,  Senate  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  1,  as  set  forth  in  words  and  figures  in  the  proc- 
lamation of  the  Governor  convening  this  extraordinary  session?' 
beg  leave  to  report  that  we  have  considered  the  same,  and  are  of 
the  opinion  that  such  question  should  be  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive.— Boynton,  Campbell,  Anthony,  Wright,  Cutten,  Caminetti, 
Estudillo,  Thompson,  Burnett,  McCartney,  "Wolfe. 

"I  dissent  from  the  above  opinion,  and,  on  the  contrary,  hold 
that  in  amending  such  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  1  we 
are  limited  to  the  'uncertainty'  mentioned  in  the  Governor's 
proclamation. — Willis,  Chairman." 

eo  Wolfe,  in  reversing  his  ruling  of  the  day  before,  took  occa- 
sion to  state: 

"On  yesterday,  when  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  1 
was  before  the  Senate,  Senator  Caminetti  offered  an  amendment 
to  the  measure  under  consideration. 

"Prior  thereto  a  committee  of  seven  Senators  and  seven  As- 
semblymen had  been  appointed  to  consider  whether  or  not,  under 
the  terms  and  limitations  of  the  Governor's  proclamation  calling 
an  extraordinary  session  of  the  Legislature,  it  was  the  privilege 
of  either  House  to  amend  the  Constitutional  amendment,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Governor's  proclamation,  in  any  other  way  except 
what  pertains  to  'uncertainty'  mentioned  in  the  Governor's  call. 

"The  Senate  committee  reported  that  it  was  the  decision  of  the 
joint  committee  that  the  Legislature  was  confined  to  the  'uncer- 
tainty' mentioned  in  the  Governor's  call,  which  report  was 
adopted  by  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  27  ayes  to  10  noes. 

"When  Senator  Caminetti  offered  his  amendment,  the  President 
of  the  Senate  ruled  that  it  was  out  of  order,  on  the  ground  that 
under  the  call  of  the  Governor  convening  this  extraordinary  ess- 


66  California's  Taxation  Problem 

Willis  appealed  from  Wolfe's  decision,  but  the  Sen- 
ate reversed  its  stand  of  the  day  before,  and  by  a  vote 
of  31  to  1,  Willis  voting  in  the  negative,  sustained 
Wolfe  in  his  new  position.  This  action  brought  the 
Senate  into  harmony  with  the  Assembly,  ensured  con- 
currence in  the  Assembly  amendments,  and  eliminated 
the  danger  of  deadlock  between  the  two  Houses. 

The  measure  with  the  defect  which  had  necessi- 
tated the  calling  of  the  Legislature  into  extraordinary 
session  corrected,  was  accordingly  submitted  to  the 
electors  at  the  1910  election.  But  this  was  not  done 
until  the  Senate  had  concurred  in  the  Assembly  amend- 
ments. 

sion,  no  amendment  was  in  order,  except  what  was  specifically 
referred  to  in  the  call. 

"From  this  decision  Senator  Caminetti  appealed.  On  a  roll-call, 
by  a  vote  of  23  ayes  to  11  noes,  the  decision  of  the  President  was 
affirmed. 

"To-day  a  motion  passed  the  Senate  unanimously  that  the  Sen- 
ate Judiciary  Committee  be  requested  to  further  investigate  the 
subject  and  to  report  to  the  Senate  their  conclusions. 

"The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  met  and  listened  to  an  argu- 
ment by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  State,  and  their  attention 
was  called,  for  the  first  time,  to  two  decisions  rendered  in  the 
State  of  Colorado  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State.  The  first 
being  entitled,  In  re  Governor's  Proclamation,  reported  in  35  Pa- 
cific Reporter,  page  530,  and  the  second  being  entitled,  People  ex 
rel.  McGaffney  vs.  District  Court  of  Arapahoe  County  et  al.,  re- 
ported in  46  Pacific  Reporter,  page  681. 

"The  Attorney-General  of  the  State  gave  as  his  opinion  that 
these  decisions  were  applicable  to  the  situation  now  confronting 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California,  convened  under  extra- 
ordinary session;  and  upon  being  put  to  a  vote  by  11  to  1,  the 
Judiciary  Committee  decided  that  in  their  opinion  'the  Legislature 
can,  under  the  law,  amend  in  any  respect  within  the  subject 
therein  embraced,  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  1,  as  set 
forth  in  words  and  figures  in  the  proclamation  of  the  Governor 
convening  this  extraordinary  session.' 

"In  view  of  this  report,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  at  the 
time  the  President  of  the  Senate  made  his  ruling  on  the  point 
of  order  raised  against  the  amendment  introduced  by  Senator 
Caminetti,  that  the  Senate  had  not  the  benefit  of  the  Colorado 
decisions  referred  to,  before  them,  and  in  view  of  said  decisions 
and  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  the  President  now  rules 
that  the  point  of  order  raised  by  Senator  Willis  is  not  well  taken. 

"The  President  believes  that  it  is  only  fair  to  state  to  the 
Senate  that  the  Judiciary  Committee  was  not  unanimous  in  its 
opinion,  the  chairman  thereof,  Senator  Willis,  having  filed  an 
opinion  dissenting  from  that  of  the  majority  of  the  committee." 


California's  Taxation  Problem  67 

The  extraordinary  session  had  been  held  during  the 
State-wide  campaign  of  1910.  The  contest  over  the 
amendment  had  emphasized  its  weak  points.  Progres- 
sive leaders  of  the  type  of  Senator  A.  E.  Boynton  who 
were  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  measure  warned 
the  State  against  it.61  Matt  I.  Sullivan  and  E.  R.  Zion 
of  San  Francisco,  at  their  own  expense,  sent  state- 
ments of  what  the  practical  operation  of  the  measure 
would  be  to  various  progressive  newspapers.  Richmond 
Plant  of  Los  Angeles  performed  a  similar  service  in 

6i  Senator  Boynton  urged  twelve  points  against  the  measure: 

(1)  That  It  substituted  for  the  existing  system  of  State  taxa- 
tion   purely    a    theoretical    plan,    the    effects    of    which    were    not 
understood  by  the  people  or  by  the  sponsors  of  the  new  system. 

(2)  That  the  new  system  was  unnecessary,   inasmuch  as  every 
object  proposed,    except   the    separation   of   State   and  local   taxes, 
could   be    accomplished    under   the    existing   powers    of   the    Legis- 
lature. 

(3)  That   the   rates   were   fixed    on    the   basis    of   present    needs 
only  and  that  future  needs  were  not  taken  into  consideration. 

(4)  That    it    impaired    California's    securities,    inasmuch    as    It 
removed  the  tax  on  foreign  securities  purchased  by  banks  and  put 
them    on    the    same    plane    with    local    bonds    which    were    exempt 
from    taxation.      Boynton    claimed    this    would   mean    that    money 
from  California  banks  would  flow  out  of  the  State. 

(5)  That  the  proposed  tax  on  banks  would  cause  a  reduction 
in  the  capital  stock  and  diminution  of  the  available  money  supply. 

(6)  That  it  would  cause  banks  to  distribute  their  reserve  funds 
and     undivided     profits     as     dividends,     thereby    weakening     their 
stability. 

(7)  That  the  system  could  be  easily  evaded. 

(8)  That   provision    for    State   University   funds    would    be    re- 
pealed and  the  school  fund  impaired. 

(9)  That    municipal    ownership    would    be    rendered    difficult    if 
not  impossible,  because  the  withdrawal  of  face  valuations  and  the 
income    of   public    service    corporations    through   municipal    owner- 
ship,  would  raise  the  tax  rate  of  other  corporations  which  would 
work  for  the  passage  of  State  laws  prohibiting  public  ownership 
of  utilities. 

(10)  That  the  plan  had  resulted  in  gross  corruption  and  abuse 
in   States  having  similar  provisions. 

(11)  That  the  fixed  rate  of  the  corporations  affected  was  to  be 
in   lieu   of  all    other  taxes,    State,    county,    and   municipal,    whereas 
as   in   other   States   it  is    "in   addition    to   other   taxes." 

(12)  That  the   corporations   would   have   no   interest  in   keeping 
down    county    and    municipal    tax    rates.      The    flat    rate,    Boynton 
said,   assessed  against  the  corporation  would   remain   the   same  in 
spite  of  the  increase  in  the  tax  rate  to  other  persons.     The  cor- 
porations would  thus  favor  the  extravagant  expenditure  of  county 
and  municipal  funds  for  selfish  purposes. 


68  California's  Taxation  Problem 

Southern  California.  The  Los  Angeles  Express,  the 
principal  Progressive  newspaper  published  south  of 
Tehachapi,  was  strongly  against  the  proposed  change. 

On  the  other  hand,  corporations  that  would  be  im- 
mediately affected  by  the  change  made  a  strong  fight 
in  support  of  ratification.62  Real  estate  owners  were 
led  to  support  it  on  the  ground  that  under  the  changed 
system,  taxes  on  land  would  be  reduced.  The  general 
public,  aroused  over  the  scandal  of  corporation-domina- 
tion of  the  State  government,  was  won  to  it  by  the 
argument  that  the  corporations  would  be  required  to 
provide  the  revenue  for  State  purposes,  and  would  thus 
be  placed  in  position  where  they  could  no  longer  evade 
their  just  share  of  the  tax  burden.63 

62  The    incongruity    of    corporation    support    of    a    measure    the 
ratification  of  which  was  urged  on  the  ground   that   it  would  in- 
crease the  taxes  paid  by  the  corporations,  thoroughly  exasperated 
those  opponents  of  the  amendment  who  realized  what  it  meant. 

"To-day,"  said  Matt  I.  Sullivan  in  a  statement  published  in  the 
principal  Progressive  newspapers  of  the  State,  "many  of  our  best 
citizens  usually  on  the  alert  to  prevent  legislation  hostile  to  the 
interests  of  the  people,  favor  the  amendment  on  the  supposed 
ground  that  it  will  simplify  the  system  of  taxation,  increase  the 
taxes  of  public  service  corporations,  and  lighten  the  burden  of  the 
other  taxpayers.  The  corporations,  whose  taxes  are  supposed  to 
be  increased  by  the  amendment,  excepting  the  banks,  are  work- 
ing for  its  adoption.  They  have  created  a  fund,  which  is  now 
being  used  to  convince  the  people  that  the  taxes  of  the  masses 
will  be  reduced  if  the  amendment  goes  into  effect,  and  that  the 
taxes  of  the  corporations  will  be  correspondingly  increased." 

"A  final  objection,"  said  A.  E.  Boynton  in  giving  his  reasons 
why  the  amendment  should  be  defeated,  "which  can  be  made  to 
the  amendment  as  a  whole  is  that  both  the  largest  railroad  cor- 
poration and  the  largest  street  railway  system  in  the  State  are 
in  favor  of  the  measure  and  are  industriously  working  for  its 
passage.  In  the  case  of  the  railroad  company,  their  taxes  would 
not  be  increased,  and  the  taxes  of  the  street-car  system  would  be 
reduced  20  per  cent.  No  one  would  accuse  these  two  corpora- 
tions of  not  looking  out  for  their  own  welfare,  and  the  fact  that 
they  are  so  heartily  in  favor  of  the  measure  should  warn  the 
people  to  study  it  well  before  they  place  the  seal  of  their  votes 
upon  it." 

63  Proponents  of  the  new  taxation  scheme  now  contend  that  the 
amendment  does   not   provide    that   the    corporations   shall    provide 
all  the  revenue  for  State  purposes,  and  the  general  tax  payers  all 
the   revenue   for  local   purposes.     The   contention   is   correct.     The 
amendment    makes    no    provision    by    which    corporations    can    be 


California's  Taxation  Problem  69 

But  the  most  effective  supporter  of  the  amendment, 
was  Mr.  A.  B.  Nye,  State  Controller.  Mr.  Nye  had 
the  confidence  of  all  who  knew  him.  He  was  a  man  of 
fine  ability.  His  integrity  and  his  good  citizenship  were 
above  question.  Mr.  Nye's  support  of  the  measure  was 
the  chief  factor  in  securing  its  ratification.  Influential 
progressive  newspapers  supported  the  amendment  be- 
cause of  Controller  Nye's  endorsement.  Citizens  who 
regarded  Mr.  Nye  as  being  in  a  position  to  judge,  con- 
cluded that  if  the  Controller,  in  whom  they  had  all 
confidence,  said  the  amendment  was  good,  that  it  must 
be  good. 

And,  by  an  overwhelming  vote  in  its  favor,  the 
amendment  was  ratified,  141,312  voting  for  it,  and  only 
96,493  against  it. 

made  to  meet  deficiencies  in  revenues  for  county,  municipal  and 
other  local  purposes;  but  it  does  provide  that  the  general  tax 
payer  may  be  compelled  to  assist  in  meeting  deficiencies  in  State 
revenues.  However,  when  the  amendment  was  before  the  people 
for  ratification,  the  electors  were  certainly  educated  to  the  belief 
that  the  corporations  affected  were  to  provide  all  the  revenue 
necessary  for  State  purposes,  in  return  for  being  relieved  of  all 
county  and  municipal  taxes  on  their  operative  properties. 

The  1910  Report  of  the  Commission  on  Revenue  and  Taxation 
— Governor  James  N.  Gillett,  chairman,  State  Senator  John  B. 
Curtin,  Commissioner  Prof.  Carl  C.  Plehn,  secretary — on  page  25, 
says: 

"The  purpose  of  the  amendment  is  to  abolish  the  State  tax  on 
property  in  general  and  to  supply  the  State's  need  from  other 
sources,  namely,  the  gross  earnings  taxes  on  public  service  cor- 
porations and  on  insurance  companies  and  the  percentage  tax  on 
the  stock  of  banks.  The  question,  therefore,  arises  as  to  whether 
the  new  sources  proposed  will  be  adequate  to  meet  the  State's 
needs." 

The  authors  of  the  report  then  proceed  to  demonstrate  that  the 
revenues  to  be  derived  from  the  corporations  would  be  sufficient 
for  State  needs. 

A  circular  letter,  under  date  of  October  15,  1910,  sent  broadcast 
throughout  the  State,  by  the  Associated  Realty  Boards  of  Cali- 
fornia, urging  ratification  of  the  amendment,  said:  "Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  1  automatically  accomplishes  perfect  equalization 
as  between  the  several  counties  of  this  State,  and  entirely  relieves 
the  localities  from  all  State  taxes." 

In  a  circular  sent  out  by  the  same  association,  the  first  two  of 
the  "six  leading  aims"  of  the  Amendments  are  declared  to  be: 

"(1)  To   entirely   remove   the   State   tax   which   is   now    imposed 


70  California's  Taxation  Problem 

The  measure  was  ratified  on  November  8,  1910. 

Two  months  later,  in  January,  1911,  the  Progressive 
administration,  with  Hiram  W.  Johnson  in  the  Gov- 
ernor's office,  assumed  control  of  the  State  government. 

The  most  important  legacy  they  found  left  them  by 
the  old  regime  was  the  change  in  the  State's  system  of 
revenue  and  taxation. 

on  property  in  general,  and  thereby  relieve  real  estate  from  its 
burden  of  paying  over  90  per  cent,  of  the  taxes  of  California. 

"(2)  To  separate  the  sources  of  State  revenue  from  those  used 
by  the  counties  and  cities,  automatically  curing  the  present  in- 
equalities between  counties,  and  removing  them  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization." 

Mr.  John  Tuohy,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation  of  the  State  Grange,  in  an  open  letter  which  was  given 
wide  circulation  among  the  rural  districts  of  the  State,  said: 

"As  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  of 
the  State  of  California,  and  under  resolutions  passed  at  its  last 
annual  convention  at  Napa,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Order  and  of  land  owners  generally,  to  the  importance 
and  necessity  of  voting  for  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No. 
1  which  provides  a  more  equitable  and  just  system  of  revenue 
and  taxation,  by  which  the  State  will  get  its  revenue  from  one 
source,  and  the  counties,  cities  and  districts  from  another,  than 
the  present  system  makes  possible." 

The  measure  was  described  on  the  ballot  as  "providing  for  the 
separation  of  State  and  local  taxation,  and  providing  for  the 
taxation  of  public  service  and  other  corporations  for  the  benefit  of 
the  State." 

If  the  idea  is  general  throughout  the  State  that  under  the 
terms  of  the  amendment  the  State's  revenues  were  to  come  from 
one  source,  namely,  the  corporations  relieved  of  local  taxes  on 
their  operating  property,  that  impression  has  its  origin  in  the 
literature  sent  out  by  the  proponents  of  the  amendment  to  induce 
the  electors  to  vote  for  its  ratification. 


CHAPTER  V. 
A    PROBLEM    THAT   WAS    NOT    SOLVED. 

The  Progressive  Legislature  which  convened  in  Jan- 
uary, 1911,  found  that  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Revenue  and  Taxation  Amendment,  which  had  been 
ratified  at  the  November  elections,  1910,  the  Legislature 
must  pass  an  administrative  act  to  put  the  new  scheme 
of  collecting  the  State's  revenues  into  effect. 

Very  frankly,  the  members  knew  nothing  about  the 
new  scheme,  nor  had  they  the  training,  nor  the  time,  nor 
the  opportunity  to  study  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  public  service  corporations 
affected  had  their  experts  on  the  ground,  men  who 
knew  every  detail  of  the  new  system,  who  were  in- 
sistent in  urging  upon  the  legislators  the  course  which 
should  be  pursued. 

One  fact,  however,  soon  forced  itself  upon  the  har- 
assed legislators,  namely,  that  the  amendment  contained 
features,  which  had  they  been  clearly  understood  when 
the  measure  was  before  The  People,  its  ratification 
would  have  been  improbable.64  But  the  measure  had 
been  ratified.  The  obligation  was  upon  the  Legislature 
to  pass  the  necessary  administrative  act. 

6*  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  was  one  of  the  strongest  advo- 
cates of  the  ratification  of  the  amendment.  Less  than  four 
months  after  its  ratification,  February  27,  1911,  the  Chronicle  said 
of  it: 

"That  the  tax  amendment  was  not  understood  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  its  adoption  has  been  followed  by  important  and  un- 
pleasant results  which  nobody  discovered  during  the  discussion, 
and  which  if  suspected  would  have  defeated  the  amendment." 


72        A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved 

Such  an  act 64a  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Cur- 
tin,  member  of  the  Commission  which  had  worked  out 
the  new  taxation  scheme.  The  measure  was  made  the 
basis  of  the  bill  that  was  eventually  enacted.  After 
five  weeks'  consideration  by  the  Senate  Committee65 
on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  the  bill  passed  the  Senate, 
with  Senators  very  frankly  stating  they  could  make 
little  out  of  it,  and  did  not  understand  it,  but  assumed 
that  Senator  Curtin  did. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation 
amended  the  measure  on  111  counts.  The  Senate,  how- 
ever, refused  to  concur  in  the  Assembly  amendments. 
The  measure  went  to  a  conference  committee  which 
failed  to  agree,  and  then  to  a  committee  on  free  con- 
ference, which  arrived  at  a  compromise  agreement. 
Both  Houses  finally  accepted  the  Free  Conference  Com- 
mittee's report  blindly.60  Not  one  in  ten  of  the  mem- 

64a  Senate   Bill   13,   1911   series. 

65  Under  the  change  in  the  method  of  levying  taxes,  the  public 
service  corporations  affected  are  relieved  of  local  taxes  on  their 
operative  property.  They  are  required,  however,  to  pay  local 
taxes  on  their  non-operative  holdings.  A  crowd  of  lobbyists  at- 
tended every  committee  meeting  to  urge  upon  the  committee  the 
various  properties  which  in  the  enabling  act  they  would  have 
described  as  operating.  One  power  company's  representative  held 
that  in  as  much  as  his  company  was  dependent  upon  a  given 
stream  for  power,  the  watershed  of  that  stream  was  operative 
property,  and  therefore  not  subject  to  local  taxation.  A  tax  ex- 
pert of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  wanted  operative  property 
described  as  "property  used  in  the  business  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany." The  claim  was  advanced  that  any  property  "used  or  use- 
ful" to  the  corporations  affected  was  to  be  classed  as  operative 
property.  The  greatest  confusion  prevailed.  At  one  meeting,  for 
example,  a  representative  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  pro- 
posed $20,000,000  worth  of  property  which  he  insisted  should  be 
classed  as  operative,  thus  relieving  it  of  local  taxation.  The  news- 
papers enthusiastically  announced  that  the  railroad  man  was  of- 
fering for  taxation  $20,000,000  worth  of  property  which  had  never 
been  taxed  before.  This  was  taken  as  evidence  of  the  satisfactory 
working  of  the  new  scheme  of  taxation. 

e«  "The  experts  or  alleged  experts,"  said  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  March  20,  1911,  "who  framed  the  (Reve- 
nue and  Taxation)  amendment,  went  immediately  at  work  to 
prepare  an  administrative  act,  and  it  soon  became  apparent  that 


A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved        73 

bers  could  have  given  a  clear  statement  of  what  the 
measure  provided,  nor  what  the  effects  of  its  passage 
would  be.  But  the  Legislature  had  at  least  done  what 
the  Constitution  required  of  it;  it  had  passed  an 
administrative  act  to  bring  the  new  provisions  for  rais- 
ing State  revenue  into  effect. 

But  another  problem  confronted  the  Legislature. 
Would,  under  the  new  taxation  scheme,  sufficient  rev- 
enue be  secured  for  State  purposes?  State  Controller 
Nye  insisted  there  would  be.  Chairman  Cutten  of  the 
Senate  Finance  Committee  was  as  insistent  that  a  deficit 
threatened.  The  issue  between  the  contending  factions 
finally  narrowed  down  to  the  question  of  the  amount  of 
revenue  that  could  be  raised  from  the  one  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  tax  on  corporation  franchises.  The  Com- 
mission on  Revenue  and  Taxation  had  first  estimated 
that  the  State  revenue  from  this  source  would  not 
greatly  exceed  $500,000.  In  a  later  report,  the  com- 
mission boosted  the  amount  to  nearly  $1,000,000.  Sub- 
sequently, when  the  1911  Legislature  was  wrestling  with 
the  problem  of  revenues,  a  final  estimate  of  approxi- 
mately $1,500,000  was  made.  The  State  Board  of 
Equalization  later  assessed  such  franchises  $1,677,745. 
Of  this  tax  there  was,  in  1911,  actually  collected 

they  did  not  really  themselves  know  what  the  amendment  which 
they  had  framed  meant. 

"With  much  labor  the  bill  was  finally  prepared  and  introduced, 
whereupon  Senators  promptly  confessed  that  they  could  not  make 
head  or  tail  of  the  law  but  would  vote  as  the  one  Senator  who 
confessed  to  understanding  it  told  them  to  vote.  And  so  the  bill 
passed  the  Senate. 

"The  Assembly,  however,  has  not  the  same  faith.  Its  com- 
mittee undertook  to  wrestle  personally  with  the  problem  and, 
through  a  sub-committee,  has  proposed  110  (111)  amendments, 
some  of  them  said  to  be  radical. 

"We  shall  get  through  it  somehow,  some  time.  In  a  year  or 
two  we  shall  know  what  we  have  done,  and  if  in  any  respect  we 
have  erred  we  can  make  the  necessary  amendments." 


74        A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved 

$1,619,588.  This  large  sum  did  not  come  from  cor- 
porations relieved  of  local  taxation,  but  from  general 
business  firms  and  other  taxpayers  who  had  incorpo- 
rated and  who  paid  county,  municipal  and  district  ad 
valorem  taxes  on  all  their  holdings.67  The  incident 

67  The  smaller  corporations  In  addition  to  paying:  increased 
local  taxes,  because  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  operative  properties 
of  the  public  service  corporations  from  local  taxation,  forced  to 
pay  this  large  amount  for  State  purposes,  protested  that  the 
assessment  was  excessive,  arbitrary,  and  not  in  accord  with  the 
intent  of  the  originators  of  the  new  taxation  scheme.  They  also 
objected  to  the  State  Board  of  Equalization's  interpretation  of  the 
amendment.  This  interpretation  found  expression  in  the  little  un- 
derstood enabling  act  of  1911,  which  provided  that  the  term  fran- 
chise "shall  include  the  actual  exercise  of  the  right  to  be  a  cor- 
poration and  to  do  business  as  a  corporation  under  the  laws  of 
the  State." 

The  smaller  corporations  insisted  further  that  the  wording  of 
the  1910  report  of  the  Commission  on  Revenue  and  Taxation, 
which  was  used  as  a  campaign  document  in  support  of  the  rati- 
fication of  the  constitutional  amendment  changing  the  taxation 
system,  led  small  business  corporations  to  the  general  understand- 
ing that  their  franchises  were  not  to  be  taxed  for  State  purposes. 

The  method  of  assessing  the  franchises  was  also  made  subject 
of  strong  objection.  This  objection  was  set  forth  by  Assembly- 
man Sutherland  in  explanation  of  his  Assembly  Bill  1198  (1913 
series)  relating  to  the  Franchise  Tax.  Mr.  Sutherland  said: 

"The  theory  under  which  it  is  presumed  that  the  franchise  to 
exist  as  a  corporation  and  to  do  business  as  a  corporation  pos- 
sesses any  value  in  any  case  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
paper  of  the  corporation  possesses  more  value  than  the  tangible 
or  visible  property  belonging  to  the  corporation.  This  is  the 
assumption  upon  which  the  Court  proceeded  in  the  case  of  the 
Bank  of  California  vs.  San  Francisco.  The  Court  there  said: 

"  'It  appears  from  the  records  in  the  case  that  the  Supervisors 
held  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  tangible  property  of 
the  corporation  and  the  aggregate  market  value  of  the  shares  of 
stock  of  the  corporation,  to  be  the  value  of  the  franchise*  (142 
Cal.,  at  page  286. 

"The  decision  that  the  Assessor  had  acted  properly  was  based 
upon  the  determination  that  the  paper  of  the  corporation  was 
worth  more  than  the  tangible  property  of  the  corporation.  The 
State  Board  of  Equalization  in  ascertaining  and  determining  the 
value  of  the  franchise  'to  be  and  to  do'  has  departed  from  the 
rule  laid  down  in  the  Bank  of  California  case.  The  Board  instead  of 
taking  the  difference  between  the  actual  value  of  the  tangible  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  corporation,  subtracts  the  assessed  value  as 
determined  by  the  local  Assessors  in  the  counties  wherein  the 
property  of  the  corporation  lies.  It  is  obvious  that  in  those  cases 
(which  is  nearly  always  the  rule)  where  the  Assessors  have 
assessed  the  value  of  the  tangible  property  of  the  corporation 
lower  than  its  actual  value,  there  enters  into  the  result  a  large 
element  of  tangible  value,  that  is  to  say,  in  attempting  to  de- 
termine the  value  of  that  "intangible  thing,"  called  the  franchise, 
the  Board  has  taken  into  consideration  the  value  of  a  large  part 
of  the  tangible  property  belonging  to  the  corporation.  The  result 
of  the  method  employed  by  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  is 


A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved        75 

shattered  the  theory  generally  current  throughout  Cali- 
fornia that  under  the  new  taxation  system  the  corpora- 
tions relieved  of  county,  municipal  and  district  taxes  on 
their  operative  properties  were  to  provide  all  the  State 

that  private  business  corporations  of  the  State  have  paid  more 
than  is  their  just  share  of  the  burden  of  taxation,  more  than  any 
other  class  of  taxpayers,  and,  moreover,  the  taxes  among  the  cor- 
porations themselves  have  been  levied  unequally  and  unfairly. 

"Private  business  corporations  of  the  State  pay  the  following 
taxes:  (1)  incorporation  fees  for  the  privilege  of  receiving  a 
charter  from  the  State;  (2)  a  license  fee  for  the  privilege  of 
existing  as  a  corporation;  (3)  a  local  tax  upon  all  of  their  tangible 
property  as  assessed  by  the  County  Assessor  of  the  county  in 
which  the  property  is  situated.  This  tax  Is  the  same  as  that  paid 
by  all  other  classes  of  tax  payers  in  the  county;  (4)  after  the 
private  business  corporation  gets  through  paying  these  three 
taxes  it  is  again  levied  upon  by  the  State  Board  of  Equalization 
for  a  franchise  tax.  Unequal  taxes  has  been  the  result.  The 
person,  or  group  of  persons,  carrying  on  business  through  the 
agency  of  a  corporation,  in  addition  to  the  taxes  paid  for  the 
right  to  exist  and  to  do  business  as  a  corporation,  is  compelled  to 
pay  a  greater  tax  upon  the  physical  property  of  the  corporation 
than  is  paid  upon  property  of  the  same  nature  and  value  owned 
by  private  individuals.  The  following  is  an  illustration: 

"Suppose  two  pieces  of  real  estate,  each  having  an  actual  value 
of  $100,000,  are  located  side  by  side  in  the  same  county.  The  first 
is  owned  by  an  individual.  Under  the  constitutional  tax  pro- 
visions and  the  laws  of  the  State,  the  individual  pays  only  a  local 
tax  and  is  relieved  from  all  State  taxation.  His  property  is 
usually  assessed  by  the  County  Assessor,  according  to  the  last 
report  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization,  at  45%  of  its  actual 
value,  or  $45,000.  Upon  this  $45,000  he  pays  a  local  tax,  and 
here  his  burden  of  taxation  stops.  The  second  piece  of  property 
is  owned  by  a  corporation  which  has  already  paid  the  State  an 
incorporation  tax  and  an  annual  license  tax.  This  property  is 
likewise  assessed  by  the  County  Assessor  at  45%  of  its  actual 
value,  or  $45,000.  Upon  this  valuation  of  $45,000  the  corporation 
pays  the  same  local  tax  as  the  individual.  The  corporation, 
however,  is  not  through  paying  taxes.  The  State  Board  of 
Equalization  then  demands  a  payment  of  a  tax  upon  its  franchise. 
In  those  cases  where  the  stock  has  no  market  value  the  Board 
of  Equalization  assesses  a  franchise  tax  to  this  corporation  by 
deducting  from  the  actual  value  of  all  the  property  owned  by  the 
corporation,  the  assessed  value  as  determined  by  the  County  As- 
sessor, and  upon  the  remainder,  or  $55,000  levies  a  franchise  tax. 
This  is  done  usually  by  dividing  the  $55,000  by  four,  and  assessing 
a  tax  of  1%  upon  the  result,  $13,750.  In  such  a  case  the  indi- 
vidual pays  a  tax  upon  an  assessed  valuation  of  $45,000  and  the 
corporation  pays  a  tax  upon  an  assessed  valuation  of  $58,750. 

"It  is  obvious  that  the  use  of  the  assessed  value  is  entirely 
wrong.  Every  mistake  made  by  a  local  Assessor  is  perpetrated 
by  the  State  Board  and  carried  forward  into  the  administration 
of  the  State  tax  system.  The  use  of  the  assessed  value  is  a 
mistake  for  another  reason.  Some  Assessors  fix  the  value  at  25% 
of  the  real  value  of  the  property,  but  in  such  cases  the  tax  rate 
is  invariably  higher  than  in  those  counties  where  the  assessed 
value  is  nearer  to  the  real  value  of  the  property.  And  in  those 


76        A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved 

revenues.68  The  important  receipts  additional  to  the 
taxes  on  gross  incomes  paid  by  companies  relieved  of 
local  taxes  in  large  measure  relieved  the  situation. 


cases  where  the  assessed  value  is  higher  the  tax  rate  is  low. 
Illustrative  of  this,  let  us  take  the  following  examples: 

"Example  A.  Suppose  a  corporation  owns  $100,000  worth  of 
tangible  property  in  County  A.  In  that  county  the  assessed  value 
is  only  25%  of  the  real  value,  or  $25,000.  In  this  county,  how- 
ever, the  tax  rate  is  3%.  The  corporation  therefore  pays  a  tax 
of  $750. 

"Example  B.  The  same  corporation  owns  $100,000  worth  of 
property  in  County  B.  The  assessed  value  is  75%  of  the  real 
value,  or  $75,000.  By  reason  of  the  high  assessed  value,  the  tax 
rate  in  this  county  is  only  1%.  The  corporation  therefore  pays  in 
this  county  the  same  amount  of  tax  as  in  County  A,  or  $750.00. 

"These  two  cases  show  the  utter  absurdity  of  the  method 
adopted  by  the  Board  when  it  uses  the  assessed  instead  of  the 
actual  value  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  franchise  value 
of  the  corporations.  In  the  case  of  'Example  A,"  the  Board  would 
subtract  $25,000  from  the  value  of  the  stock  of  the  corporation 
and  would  levy  a  tax  upon  the  remainder,  or  $75,000.  In  'Ex- 
ample B'  the  assessed  value,  or  $75,000,  would  be  subtracted  and 
the  franchise  tax  would  be  levied  upon  the  result,  $25,000.  This, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  corporation  pays  identically  the  same 
amount  of  tax  in  both  counties." 

At  the  1913  session,  two  measures  were  introduced  bearing 
upon  the  taxing  of  franchises  for  State  purposes:  Assembly  Bill 
1198  (Sutherland)  and  Senate  Bill  1088  (Thompson). 

In  many  particulars  the  two  measures  were  practically  the 
same.  The  Sutherland  bill  differed  from  the  Thompson  bill,  how- 
ever, in  that  it  prescribed  a  special  method  of  determining  the 
value  of  franchises  thus  assessed,  and  bound  the  Board  of  Equal- 
ization in  making  the  assessments  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the 
Bank  of  California  case. 

Of  this  feature  of  his  bill.  Assemblyman  Sutherland  in  his  ex- 
planation of  the  measure  said: 

"This  law  simply  lays  down  the  rule  in  the  Bank  of  California 
case  and  would  compel  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  to  sub- 
tract the  actual  instead  of  the  assessed  value  from  the  value  of 
the  paper  of  the  corporation.  This  rule  is  in  accord  with  common 
sense  and  reason,  and  if  adopted  by  the  Board  would  result  in 
ascertaining  the  intangible  value  of  the  right  to  exist  and  to  do 
business  as  a  corporation.  The  element  of  tangible  value  would 
not  enter  into  the  calculation  at  all  and  there  could  be  no  oppor- 
tunity for  mistake.  This  method  is  the  one  which  the  Board 
claims  to  follow  and  there  could  be  no  valid  objection  on  their 
part  to  making  it  compulsory.  See  Special  Report  on  Taxation, 
Showing  First  Effects  of  Separation,  dated  December  1,  1911,  at 
bottom  page  6  thereof." 

Both  measures  passed  the  Legislature.  Governor  Johnson 
signed  the  Thompson  bill.  He  did  not  sign  the  Sutherland  bill. 

68  For  the  source  of  this  theory  see  footnote  63,  page  68.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  private  franchise  tax  is  not  the  only  source 
of  State  revenues  other  than  that  paid  by  those  public  service 
corporations  and  other  concerns  which  are  entirely  relieved  of 
county,  municipal  and  district  taxes.  For  the  fiscal  year  1911-12 


A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved        77 

But  another  important  fact  went  far  toward  pre- 
venting the  deficit  which  Senator  Cutten  two  years 
before  had  predicted.  The  1911  Legislature  had  been 
economical.  Its  appropriations  had  been  held  down  to 
the  minimum. 

With  the  extraordinary  development  of  the  State 
during  the  last  ten  years  expenses  of  State  government, 
have  naturally  increased.  The  increase  of  the  appro- 
priations made  at  the  session  of  1903  over  those  of  the 
session  of  1901  was,  for  example,  18.42  per  cent. ;  of 
1905  over  1903,  32.53  per  cent.;  of  1907  over  1905, 
13.90  per  cent.;  of  1909  over  1907,  18.12  per  cent. 

In  the  ordinary  course,  the  increase  of  the  1911 
appropriations  over  those  of  1909  woulcl  have  been 
approximately  20  per  cent.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
increase  was  kept  down  to  8.28  per  cent. 

To  make  this  possible  the  1911  Legislature  was 
obliged  to  reduce  every  appropriation  to  the  minimum. 
That  closer  economy  could  be  practiced  by  the  1913 
Legislature  was  out  of  the  question.69  The  1913  Legis- 

the  State  received  from  poll  taxes,  $843,603.69;  from  Inheritance 
taxes,  $1,083,243.87;  from  corporation  licenses,  $802,012.50;  from 
general  property  tax  (delinquencies,  etc.),  $197,145.77;  from  in- 
surance brokerage  tax,  $3,377.98.  The  greater  the  income  that  can 
be  secured  from  such  independent  sources,  the  less  the  necessity 
of  increasing  the  rates  of  those  corporations  which  in  lieu  of 
paying  State  taxes  are,  under  the  new  revenue  system,  relieved 
of  all  local  taxes.  At  the  1911  session,  a  measure  was  introduced 
(Senate  Bill  1020)  placing  a  State  license  of  $200  a  year  on 
wholesale  liquor  establishments;  $150  a  year  on  saloons  employing 
more  than  four  bartenders;  $100  a  year  on  saloons  employing  not 
more  than  four  bartenders.  The  measure  was  again  Introduced  at 
the  1913  session.  Had  this  bill  become  a  law  the  State  would 
have  derived  enormous  income  from  the  saloons.  This  saloon- 
furnished  revenue  would  have  further  removed  the  companies 
taxed  exclusively  for  State  purposes  from  danger  of  having  their 
rates  increased. 

69  Governor  Johnson  in  his  biennial  message  to  the  1913 
Legislature  (January  6,  1913),  touched  upon  this  point.  "During 
the  past  two  years,"  he  said,  "the  percentage  of  increase  in  our 
public  institutions  has  been  infinitely  greater  than  during  any 


78        A  Problem  That  Was  Not  Solved 

lature  found  itself  confronted  with  the  problem,  which 
could  no  longer  be  put  off,  of  securing  sufficient  revenue 
under  the  new  system  of  taxation  for  the  requirements 
of  the  State  government. 


other  biennial  period.  For  Instance,  the  Increase  in  the  number 
of  insane  in  our  hospitals  was  over  15  per  cent.;  the  increase  in 
the  number  of  pupils  in  our  normal  schools  was  over  30  per  cent. ; 
and  with  these  increases  so  great  In  percentage,  the  State  has 
been  maintained  and  its  various  departments  operated  with  an  in- 
crease of  but  8.28  per  cent,  in  appropriations.  Economy  has 
probably  been  stretched  to  the  limit  in  the  past  two  years  in  the 
management  of  our  public  institutions,  as  these  figures  demon- 
strate. To  attempt  economy  beyond  this  will  mean  that  sort  of 
parsimoniousness  that  can  only  result  disastrously." 


CHAPTER  VI. 
1913  REVENUE  AND  TAXATION  MEASURE. 

Governor  Johnson  in  his  biennial  message  to  the  1913 
Legislature  called  attention  to  three  facts  which  had 
become  apparent  to  all  in  touch  with  the  State  revenue 
situation : 

1.  That  the  new  tax  system  would  not  provide,  for 
the  years  1913  and  1914,  the  revenue  essential  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  State  government. 

2.  That  small  corporations  were  paying  a  greater 
proportion  of  the  taxes  than  they  should  and  larger  cor- 
porations were  paying  a  smaller  proportion  of  the  taxes 
than  they  should. 

3.  That  the  small  householder  proportionately  was 
paying  a  greater  amount  of  taxes  than  the  great  public 
service  corporations.70 

The  State  Board  of  Equalization  published  a  special 


TO  "I  call  your  attention,"  said  the  Governor,  "to  the  report 
of  Controller  Nye  In  which  he  estimates  the  excess  of  expendi- 
tures for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1913,  at  $630,000,  and  the 
deficit  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1914,  to  be  $1,101,000. 
These  estimates,  in  my  opinion,  are  much  less  than  the  true 
amounts  will  be  found  to  be  for  the  periods  mentioned.  They  are 
made  with  a  confidence  in  the  future  revenue-producing  possibili- 
ties of  the  new  method  of  taxation  possessed  now  by  but  few; 
and  they  are  based  upon  estimates  of  the  necessary  expenses  of 
the  State  which  are  far  below  what  those  necessary  expenses 
should  be.  It  is  possible  that,  as  in  1911,  this  Legislature  may 
keep  the  appropriations  of  the  State  at  an  extremely  low  figure, 
even  as  low  as  the  Controller  estimates  those  expenditures  in  his 
report,  but  to  maintain  the  expenditures  at  such  an  amount  will 
probably  be  done  at  the  expense  of  the  progress  and  advancement 
of  the  State,  and  to  the  detriment  of  those  the  duty  of  caring 
for  whom  devolves  upon  the  State." 


8o      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 


report  a  few  days  later  on  the  Relative  Burden  of  State 
and  Local  Taxes  in  1912.71 

This  report  bore  out  Governor  Johnson's  contentions. 
It  set  forth  that  under  the  new  system,  the  average 
rates  of  taxes  paid  by  the  several  groups  on  each  $100  of 
actual  value  of  their  property72  to  be: 

71  Copies  of  this  special   report  can  be   had   by  addressing  the 
State    Board    of    Equalization    or    the    State    Controller    at    Sacra- 
mento. 

72  The  value    of   the   property   of   the    corporations    was   ascer- 
tained by  the   "stock  and  bond"   method.     This  consists  in  ascer- 
taining the  prices  at  which  the  shares  of  stock  and  the  outstand- 
ing bonds  of  a  given  company  are  selling  for,   and  multiplying  the 
number  of  shares   and  bonds  outstanding  by  the  price   per  share 
or  per  bond. 

By  this  method  the  following  results  were  obtained: 


Classes. 

Valuations. 

Taxes. 

Ratio. 

For  192  companies  of  all  classes 
For  63  railroads  and  st.  railways 
For  82  gas  and  elec.   companies 
For  47  tel.  and  tel.  companies... 
For  1    car   company  

$854,060,888 
601,365,823 
185,877,507 
53,405,710 
6,804,932 

$7,506,206.71 
5,467,408.07 
1,393,882.11 
483,110.45 
59,971.06 

.8789% 
.9092% 
.75  % 
.9060% 
.8813% 

For  1  express  company.  .  . 

6,606.916 

101.835.02 

1.5413% 

To  get  at  the  actual  value  of  property  of  general  taxpayers 
upon  which  local  taxes  are  paid,  the  Board  endeavored  to  ascer- 
tain the  true  market  value  of  property  in  all  parts  of  the  State. 
This  value  was  approximated: 

(1)  By  making  direct  appraisements  in  thirty  of  the  fifty-eight 
counties  of  the  State. 

(2)  In  addition,   the  Board  availed  itself  of  the  following  addi- 
tional  sources   of   information: 

(a)  Information    concerning    the    sales    and    appraisements    of 
property  made   by   the   courts   in   probate   proceedings. 

(b)  The   appraisements  made   under  the  direction   of   the   courts 
and  by  appraisers  selected  by  the  State  Controller  for  the  purpose 
of  fixing  the  State  inheritance  tax. 

(c)  The    appraisements    of    property   which    had    been    made    in 
many  of  the  counties  for  the  State  Insurance  Commissioner  of  the 
property    upon    which    the    insurance    companies    wished    to    make 
loans. 

(d)  The   information   upon   relative  values   and   the   many  points 
involved  accumulated  by  the  Board  in  its  past  work   of  equalizing 
and  assessing  taxes  on  property. 

Twenty-six  counties  in  which  appraisements  were  made  and  in 
which  the  appraisals  were  deemed  fair,  aggregated  $2,113,867,583  in 
assessed  values,  out  of  a  total  assessment  in  the  State  of  $2,475,- 
746,905,  or  85  per  cent,  of  the  total.  The  appraisements  in  these 
particular  counties  showed  an  assessment  of  45.2  per  cent,  of  ac- 
tual value.  The  ratio  of  all  the  counties  considered  was  45.1  per 
cent.  The  total  of  the  county  assessment  rolls  for  1912  was  $2,475,- 
746,905.  The  true  value  of  the  property  assessed  as  estimated  by 
this  method  was  $5,490,934,141.  The  taxes  collected  from  the  gen- 
eral tax  papers  of  California  (county,  municipal,  district  and  Pan- 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      81 

For  the  general  taxpayer $1.1386 

For  railroads  and  Street  railroads 0.9092 

For  Gas  and  Electric  Companies 0.7500 

For  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Companies 0.9060 

For  Car  Companies   0.8813 

For  Express  Companies  1.5413 7a 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  general  taxpayer  under 
the  new  arrangements  was  paying  on  the  $100  actual 
valuation  of  his  property  $0.2294  more  than  the  aver- 
age paid  by  the  railroad  corporations,  $0.3886  more 
than  the  average  paid  by  the  Gas  and  Electric  Com- 
panies, $0.2326  more  than  the  average  paid  by  the  Tele- 
phone Companies,  $0.2573  more  than  the  average  paid 
by  the  Car  Companies.  Only  one  group,  the  Express 
Companies,  paid  more,  according  to  the  report,  than  the 
general  taxpayer. 

The  inequality  between  the  ad  valorem  ratio  paid  by 
the  general  taxpayer  and  the  ratios  paid  by  the  corpo- 
rations directly  affected  by  the  new  system  was  small, 
however,  when  compared  with  the  inequality  of  the  rates 
paid  by  the  several  corporations.74 

ama-Pacific   Exposition),    totaled   $62,519,537.43.     This  gives  a   rate 
of  $1.1386  on  each  $100  actual  value. 

As  against  the  $62,519,537.43  taxes  which  the  general  tax  payer 
paid,  the  concerns  relieved  of  local  taxation  paid  $9,291,507.72.  Of 
this  amount  192  companies  paid  $7,506,206.71  on  a  valuation  of 
$854,060,888,  or  $0.8789  on  the  $100  valuation.  Had  these  companies 
paid  $1.1386,  the  estimate  rate  paid  by  the  general  tax  payer, 
their  State  taxes  would  have  been  $9,724,337,  or  $2,218,131  more 
than  they  actually  paid. 

73  The  Constitution  itself  fixes  the  rates  of  taxation  for  the 
banks  and  the  insurance  companies,  being  for  the  former  1  per 
cent,  upon  the  book  value  of  the  stock  (paid-up  capital  stock, 
surplus  and  undivided  profits),  and  for  insurance  companies,  1% 
per  cent,  on  gross  premiums,  less  return  premiums  and  rein- 
surance. 

7*  The  Board  of  Equalization  in  its  special  report  refers  to  the 
"Marked  differences  between  the  tax  burdens  of  the  different 


82      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

Thus  the  railroads  within  the  State  paid  $0.9092  on 
the  $100  of  actual  value  of  their  property,  while  the 
general  taxpayer  paid  $1.1386.  But  the  Los  Angeles 
and  San  Diego  Beach  Railway  paid  $1.6588  on  the  $100 
valuation,  which  is  $0.5202  more  than  the  rate  paid  by 
the  general  taxpayer.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hum- 
boldt  Northern  Railroad  paid  $0.3417  on  the  $100  val- 
uation. This  is  a  rate  of  $0.7969  on  the  $100  valua- 
tion less  than  the  general  taxpayer  paid,  and  $1.3171 
less  than  the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Diego  Beach  Rail- 
road paid.  On  each  $100  valuation  of  its  enormous 
holdings  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  paid  $0.9696, 
which  was  a  trifle  more  than  the  average  paid  by  rail- 
roads but  $0.1690  less  than  the  rate  paid  by  the  gen- 
eral taxpayer.  The  report  showed  that  seven  railroads 
paid  a  higher  rate  than  that  paid  by  the  general  tax- 
payer, while  seventeen  roads  paid  a  higher  rate  than 
the  Southern  Pacific.  But  the  Southern  Pacific  proper- 
ties 75  made  up  nearly  one-half  the  railroad  valuation 
considered.76 

The  advantage  of  the  large  corporations  over  the 
small  was  strikingly  shown  in  the  case  of  the  telephone 
and  telegraph  companies. 

companies,"  as  a  "striking  feature."  "Thus,"  the  report  sets 
forth,  "the  ratios  of  the  railroads  range  from  0.3417  per  cent,  to 
1,6588  per  cent.,  those  of  the  gas  and  electric  companies  from 
0.3089  per  cent.,  to  4.4112  per  cent.,  and  those  of  the  telegraph 
and  telephone  companies  from  0.6286  per  cent,  to  2.5014  per  cent. 
.  .  .  It  also  appears  that  some  of  the  smaller  companies  are 
taxed  more  heavily  than  some  of  the  larger  companies."  See 
pages  19-20,  "Special  Report  of  the  California  State  Board  of 
Equalization  on  the  Relative  Burden  of  State  and  Local  Taxes  in 
1912." 

T6  Southern  Pacific  valuation,  $289,929,398;  value  of  all  railroads 
considered,   including  the   Southern  Pacific,    $601,365,823. 

76  See  Table  IX,  page  47,   "Special   Report  on   Relative  Burden 
of  State  and  Local  Taxes  in  1912." 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      83 

The  ad  valorem  ratio  paid  by  these  companies  as  a 
whole  was  $0.9060  on  the  $100,  $0.2326  less  than  that 
paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  The  rate  paid  by  the 
Pacific  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  was  $0.8476, 
$0.0584  less  than  the  ratio  paid  by  the  telephone  and 
telegraph  companies  as  a  whole,  $0.2910  less  than  the 
ratio  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer. 

But  of  the  $53,321,040  of  telephone  and  telegraph 
company  values  in  California,  $42,332,553  were  credited 
to  the  Pacific  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  and 
only  $10,988,487  to  forty-six  other  companies.  Twenty- 
six  of  these  companies  paid  a  higher  ad  valorem  rate 
than  that  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer;  one  company, 
The  Imperial  Telephone  Company,  paid  more  than 
double  the  rate  paid  by  the  average  taxpayer,  its  rate 
being  $2.5014  on  the  $100  valuation.  But  the  compara- 
tively small  ratio  paid  by  the  Pacific  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Company,  with  a  valuation  practically  four 
times  greater  than  that  of  all  the  other  telephone  and 
telegraph  companies  combined,  reduced  the  ratio  paid 
by  the  companies  as  a  whole  to  $0.2326  on  the  $100  val- 
uation less  than  that  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.77 

But  the  most  striking  ranges  were  found  in  the  ratios 
of  the  Gas  and  Electric  Companies.78  As  a  whole  these 

77  See  Table  XI,   page  50,    "Special   Report  on   Relative  Burden 
of  State  and   Local   Taxes   In   1912." 

78  The  Board  of  Equalization  in  Its  report  makes   the  following 
explanation  of  the  low  rate  paid  by  the  gas  and  electric  companies 
as  a  whole,  and  of  the  inequality  of  rates  as  between  the  several 
companies: 

"The  difference  between  the  ratio  of  taxes  to  value  of  the  gas 
and  electric  companies  and  those  of  the  railroads  and  telegraph 
and  telephone  companies  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  above  results. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  since  the  ratio  of  net  to  gross  earn- 
ings places  them  in  the  same  class  with  the  railroads.  The 
explanation  lies  in  the  fact  that  practically  all  the  larger  com- 
panies in  this  group  are  developing  new  resources  and  are  pre- 


84      I9J3  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

companies  paid  the  lowest  rate,  on  the  ad  valorem 
basis,  of  any  of  the  groups  of  public  service  corpora- 
tions, $0.7499  on  the  $100  valuation.  But  some  of  the 
Gas  and  Electric  Companies  paid  the  highest  rates  ex- 
acted of  any  class  of  taxpayers.  The  Davenport  Light 
and  Power  Company,  for  example,  paid  $4.4112  on  the 
$100.  This  is  practically  four  times  the  rate  paid  by 
the  general  taxpayer,  and  yet,  as  a  whole,  the  Gas  and 
Electric  Companies  paid  $0.3887  less  than  the  rate  paid 
by  the  general  taxpayer.  Two  other  companies  79  paid 
more  than  $3  but  less  than  $4  on  the  $100  valuation, 
while  six  companies 80  paid  more  than  $2  but  less 
than  $3. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Northern  California  Power 
Company,  Consolidated  (which  included  the  Sacramento 
Valley  Power  Company),  paid  less  than  31  cents — 
$0.3089,  to  be  exact — or  less  than  one-third  the  rate 
paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  On  the  $100  valuation, 
the  Northern  California  Power  Company  paid  $0.8297 
less  than  the  general  taxpayer,  and  $4.1023  less  than 
the  Davenport  Light  and  Power  Company. 

paring  or  have  prepared  to  render  more  service  to  the  public  than 
is  now  demanded.  Thus  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  has  Installed 
at  great  expense  hydroelectric  plants  and  other  facilities  not  yet 
used  to  anywhere  near  full  capacity.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
Pacific  Light  and  Power  Corporation.  These  investments  and  the 
reasonable  or  the  speculative  expectation  of  future  increase  in 
earnings  are  reflected  in  the  stock  and  bond  values.  By  way  of 
contrast  attention  may  be  called  to  the  Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Elec- 
tric Corporation,  with  comparatively  less  unused  plant,  whose  tax 
ratio  is  1.1824  per  cent,  as  against  0.7037  per  cent,  and  0.7089  per 
cent,  for  the  two  former  companies  respectively." 

79  Consumers'  Light  and  Power  Company,  $3.7230;  Vallejo 
Electric  Light  and  Power  Company,  $3.6700. 

so  Coalinga  Gas  and  Power  Company,  $2.1406;  Elsinore  Electric 
Light  and  Power  Company,  $2.8421;  Hanford  Gas  and  Power  Com- 
pany, $2.1675;  Southside  Light  and  Power  Company,  $2.4323; 
Truckee  River  General  Electric  Company,  $2.3504;  Tuolumne  Elec- 
tric Company,  $2.5163. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      85 

As  in  the  cases  of  other  groups  of  corporations, 
the  small  percentages  paid  by  the  larger  companies  re- 
duced the  ratio  paid  on  the  properties  of  all  the  com- 
panies. The  Northern  California  Power  Company,  for 
example,  paying  less  than  one-half  the  rate  paid  by  the 
companies  of  this  group  as  a  whole,  was  the  fifth  in 
wealth.  The  estimated  value  of  all  the  operative  prop- 
erties of  all  the  gas  and  electric  companies  considered 
was  $185,877,507.  Of  this  valuation,  $89,939,682  was 
credited  to  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company.  The 
Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  however,  paid  only 
$0.7037  on  the  $100  valuation,  $0.0462  less  than  the 
ratio  paid  by  this  group  of  corporations  as  a  whole. 

Enumeration  of  such  plain  examples  of  inequalities 
as  uncovered  by  the  Board  of  Equalization's  report 
could  be  continued  indefinitely.  Governor  Johnson  made 
the  report  subject  of  a  special  message  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, in  which  he  urged  that  the  subject  of  revenue  and 
taxation  be  taken  up  during  the  first  part  of  the  session, 
and  the  rates  paid  by  the  corporations  relieved  of  local 
taxation  be  so  increased  as  to  compel  them  to  pay  their 
just  proportion  of  taxes.81 

si  Governor  Johnson  in  his  message  summarized  the  findings  of 
the  Board  of  Equalization,  and  then  said: 

"The  situation  therefore  is  obvious.  Except  in  the  single  in- 
stance of  the  express  company,  which  probably  is  not  paying  any 
greater  sum  in  taxes  than  it  ought,  the  ordinary  taxpayer  is  pay- 
ing proportionately  twenty  per  cent,  more  than  the  public  service 
corporations. 

"As  in  my  initial  message,  again  I  call  to  your  attention  the 
fact  that  the  revenue  for  this  year  provided  by  the  new  method 
of  taxation  will  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State.  It  is  essential  that  the  additional  revenue 
required  be  provided  for  during  the  first  portion  of  your  session, 
that  is,  during  the  next  thirty  days.  I  ask,  therefore,  that  during 
this  first  part  of  your  session  you  take  up  the  subject  of  the 
revenue  of  the  State  and  increase  the  rates  of  taxation  of  the 
withdrawn  corporations  to  such  a  sum  as  shall  compel  them  to 
pay  their  Just  proportion  of  taxes." 


86      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

That  steps  must  be  taken  to  increase  the  State's 
revenues  was  apparent.  To  do  this  two  courses  were 
open. 

(1.)  The  general  taxpayer,  already  paying  all  the 
county,  municipal  and  district  taxes,  with  an  additional 
State  tax  for  the  support  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Expo- 
sition, could  be  made  to  pay  an  ad  valorem  State  tax. 
This  could  be  done  by  a  majority  vote  of  each  House; 
that  is  to  say,  of  twenty-one  Senators  and  forty-one 
Assemblymen.  Indeed,  contention  was  made  that  if  a 
deficit  actually  existed,  this  was  the  only  relief  that 
could  be  had.82 

(2.)  The  recommendations  of  Governor  Johnson 
could  be  followed,  and  the  rates  paid  by  the  public 
service  corporations  be  increased.  But  where,  under  the 
new  scheme  of  taxation  the  increased  burden  could  be 
put  on  the  general  taxpayer  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of 
each  House,  it  required  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  House 
to  increase  the  rates  paid  by  the  public  service  corpora- 
tions. Thus  twenty-one  Senators  and  forty-one  Assem- 
blymen could  increase  the  taxes  of  the  general  taxpayer 
by  compelling  him,  in  addition  to  carrying  the  entire 
burden  of  county,  municipal  and  district  taxation,  to 
assume  part  of  the  burden  of  State  taxation  also.  But 
to  increase  the  rates  of  the  public  service  corporations 


82  Art.  XIII,  Sec.  14,  Sub.  e  of  the  Constitution  amended  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  the  new  taxation  system  reads:  "In 
the  event  that  the  above-named  revenues  are  at  any  time  deemed 
insufficient  to  meet  the  annual  expenditures  of  the  State,  including 
the  above-named  expenditures  for  educational  purposes,  there  may 
be  levied,  in  the  manner  to  be  provided  by  law,  a  tax,  for  State 
purposes,  on  all  the  property  in  the  State,  including  the  classes  of 
property  enumerated  in  this  section  sufficient  to  meet  the  de- 
ficiency." 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      87 

a  vote  of  twenty-seven  Senators  and  fifty-four  Assem- 
blymen was  required.83 

To  prevent  the  rates  paid  by  the  corporations  being 
increased,  a  powerful  lobby  appeared  at  Sacramento, 
with  an  astonishing  array  of  figures,  to  demonstrate  that 
the  corporations  were  paying  a  greater  proportionate 
rate  than  the  general  taxpayer,  and  to  insist  that  in 
justice,  and  under  the  law,  the  deficit,  if  any  existed  or 
threatened,  should  be  met  by  increasing  the  taxes  of  the 
general  taxpayer  and  not  of  the  corporations. 

The  lobby  was  well  equipped.  The  corporations  had 
gone  to  enormous  expense  to  supply  their  agents  at 
Sacramento  with  data  to  demonstrate  that  the  corpora- 
tions were  paying  a  greater  proportionate  tax  than  the 
general  taxpayers.  For  seven  months,  experts  employed 
by  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  but  working  in  the 
interest  of  all  the  public  service  companies  affected,  had 
been  gathering  data  to  this  end.84  Their  work  was  begun 
months  before  the  members  of  the  Assembly  and  half 
the  members  of  the  Senate  had  been  nominated  or 
elected ;  before  many  of  them  had  thought  to  be  can- 
didates. So  the  lobbyists  were  well  prepared  to  pre- 


ss Had  the  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  the  new 
scheme  of  taxation  not  been  changed  at  the  extraordinary  session 
of  the  1909  Legislature,  a  vote  of  thirty  Senators  and  of  sixty  As- 
semblymen would  have  been  required.  See  Chapter  IV;  also, 
footnote  56,  page  62. 

8*  The  work  was  conducted  under  the  direction  of  J.  Harry 
Scott,  a  former  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization.  Mr. 
Scott  had  been  employed  for  the  job  by  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company.  He  testified  that  he  had  begun  the  work  the  previous 
May.  To  secure  the  data  he  testified  he  had  employed  among 
others,  deputy  county  assessors  and  secretaries  of  commercial 
bodies.  Thus  these  employees  of  The  People,  paid  generous  sal- 
aries by  The  People,  were  also  drawing  salaries  from  a  represent- 
ative of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company  to  collect  data 
to  be  used  by  that  corporation  against  the  State. 


88      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

sent  the  case  of  the  corporations.  But  the  legislators 
were  not  prepared :  many  of  them  had  not  so  much  as 
heard,  until  after  they  had  reached  Sacramento,  of  the 
revenue  problem  confronting  the  State.  The  corpora- 
tions had  seen  the  investigation  coming,  and  had  pre- 
pared to  meet  it.  The  legislators,  except  for  the  special 
report  of  the  Board  of  Equalization  which  they  had  no 
time  to  read,  much  less  study,  were  not  prepared  at  all. 

But  prepared  or  unprepared,  the  Legislature  had  to 
meet  the  issue  promptly.  To  make  whatever  plan  might 
be  decided  upon  effective  for  the  following  year,  action 
had  to  be  taken  during  the  first  part  of  the  session. 
The  outside  day  of  adjournment  for  the  legislative 
recess  was  only  three  weeks  away.  Both  Houses  were 
crowded  with  the  work  of  the  opening  of  a  busy  session. 
The  members  had  no  time  for  this  "new"  issue.  The 
taxation  problem  was  virtually  turned  over  to  the  com- 
mittees on  Revenue  and  Taxation  of  both  Houses. 

These  committees  arranged  to  give  each  group  of 
corporations  affected  a  whole  day  in  which  to  present 
the  matter  from  the  corporations'  standpoint.  But  this 
plan  was  changed  somewhat,  the  corporations  affected 
having  practically  joined  issues,  and  being  willing  to 
have  their  case  presented  by  Robert  T.  Devlin  and 
Warren  Gregory. 

These  gentlemen  attacked  the  special  report  of  the 
Board  of  Equalization,  which  showed  that  the  public 
service  corporations  were  paying  only  $0.8789  on  the 
$100  valuation,  while  the  general  taxpayer  was  paying 
$1.1386.  With  a  dizzying  array  of  figures,  which  had 
required  more  than  a  half  year  to  gather  and  compile, 
the  representatives  of  the  corporations  undertook  to 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      89 

show  the  divergences  from  the  Board  of  Equalization's 
report.     They  held: 

(1)  That  the  true  value  of  all  the  property  in  the 
State,  exclusive  of  the  operative  property  of  the  public 
utility  corporations,  instead  of  being  $5,490,934,141,  as 
determined  by  the  Board  of  Equalization,  was  in  reality 
$7,028,967,842,  being  an  increase  over  the  Board's  val- 
uation of  $1,538,033,701. 

(2)  That  the   ratio  between   the   assessed   value  of 
this   property  as  contrasted  with   its   actual  value  was 
.396,  instead  of  .451  as  found  by  the  Board. 

(3)  That  the  average  tax  rate  for  the   State  was 
$0.89  on  the  $100  of  actual  value,  instead  of  $1.1386 
as  found  by  the  board,  a  difference  of  $0.244  on  each 
$100. 

Detailed  reports  showing  the  basis  of  these  estimates 
were  filed  with  the  committee. 

"If  these  estimates  are  correct,"  concluded  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  corporations,  "or  substantially  correct, 
they  prove  that  the  true  percentage  between  the  as- 
sessed and  actual  value  is  .396  instead  of  .451,  and  that 
the  average  ratio  of  the  taxes  upon  the  property  taxed 
for  local  purposes  is  as  compared  with  the  true  cash 
value  of  the  property,  not  1.1386,  but  0.89. 

"From  this  it  conclusively  follows,  as  a  matter  of 
exact  calculation,  that  the  public  service  corporations  are 
now  paying  slightly  more  on  each  $100.00  valuation  of 
their  property  than  do  other  taxpayers,  and  this,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  comparison  is  based  upon 
the  aforesaid  methods  which  are  the  least  favorable  to 
the  corporations." 

The   data   presented  by  the   corporations   had  been 


90      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

gathered  under  direction  of  J.  Harry  Scott,  a  recog- 
nized authority  on  the  subject  of  taxation  in  California. 
Mr.  Scott  was  subjected  to  close  examination  by  various 
members  of  the  committee.  Scott  found  himself  con- 
fronted with  embarrassing  questions,  but  he  never  hesi- 
tated for  a  reply. 

In  his  estimates  of  property  values,  for  example, 
Scott  had  made  no  mention  of  Humboldt  County  prop- 
erties. The  whole  point  of  Mr.  Scott's  estimate  was, 
that  it  showed  the  property  of  the  general  taxpayers 
to  be  assessed  for  less  in  proportion  to  its  actual  value, 
than  did  the  report  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization. 
Kehoe  of  Humboldt  asked  Scott  if  he  had  not  gone  into 
that  county  to  show  that  assessments  of  Humboldt  tim- 
ber land  are  too  high. 

Mr.  Scott  replied  that  he  had  gone  into  Humboldt 
in  the  interest  of  timber  land  owners,  to  get  their  as- 
sessments "equalized."  But  he  insisted  that  this  had 
nothing  to  do  with  leaving  Humboldt  County  out  of 
his  estimates  in  the  present  investigation. 

Senator  Breed  of  Alameda  attacked  Scott's  estimate 
of  property  values  in  that  county.  Breed  read  from 
Scott's  report  a  long  list  of  estimates  where  the  as- 
sessed value  was  named  as  about  one-tenth  the  actual 
value  of  the  property.  Breed  stated  that  he  knew  the 
property,  and  knew  the  estimates  to  be  erroneous. 
Scott  had  given  the  actual  value  of  one  piece  at  $6.500. 
It  was  assessed  for  $650.  Breed  claimed  it  to  be  worth 
not  more  than  $1,200.  Another  piece,  assessed  for  $650, 
was  valued  in  Scott's  report  at  $5,750;  Breed  held  it  to 
be  worth  $1,750.  Another  piece  assessed  for  $700,  val- 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      91 

ued  by  Scott  at  $6,500,  was  claimed  by  Breed  to  be 
worth  not  more  than  $2,000. 

In  this  way  did  Breed  take  up  page  after  page  of 
Scott's  report,  and  show  astonishing  differences  in  esti- 
mates. Finally  the  Alameda  Senator  called  Scott's  at- 
tention to  a  lot  assessed  for  $1,100  and  valued  in  Scott's 
report  at  $9,000. 

Breed  stated  that  he  had  known  the  holding  very 
well ;  that  it  had  belonged  to  his  father ;  that  he  had 
recently  sold  it  for  his  father  for  $2,500,  all  the  prop- 
erty is  worth,  Breed  said. 

Assemblyman  Bloodgood  of  Los  Angeles  and  Assem- 
blyman Chandler  of  Fresno  showed  similar  inaccuracies 
in  Scott's  report,  so  far  as  properties  listed  from  their 
home  counties  were  concerned. 

The  various  representatives  of  the  corporations  had 
scarcely  better  success  when  they  attempted  to  attack 
the  report  made  by  the  State  Board  of  Equalization. 
Here  their  purpose  was  to  demonstrate  that  the  esti- 
mated actual  value  of  the  property  taken  by  the  Board 
as  a  basis  was  too  low.  Attorney  Devlin  read  from  the 
Board's  data  to  show  that  the  Board's  appraisements 
were  lower  than  the  Board  had  made  of  the  same  prop- 
erty three  years  before. 

The  corporations'  representative  had  apparently 
scored  a  point  until  Assemblyman  Bloodgood  of  Los 
Angeles  showed  that  the  property  which  Devlin  was 
naming  is  situated  in  a  part  of  Los  Angeles  formerly 
the  business  center,  but  now  practically  abandoned  by 
the  larger  enterprises,  a  section  of  the  city  where  de- 
creases in  real  property  values  are  notorious. 

Bloodgood   denounced  it  as  preposterous  that   such 


92      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

quotations  should  be  presented  to  the  committees,  but 
stated  that  he  did  not  believe  the  attorneys  for  the  cor- 
porations were  parties  to  it. 

Bloodgood  read  from  one  sheet  of  data  which 
showed  one  piece  of  property  where  the  appraisement  in 
1912  was  less  than  it  had  been  in  1909.  The  total  of  the 
property  on  the  sheet  showed  an  increase  of  over  $1 ,000,- 
000  in  the  1912  appraisement. 

"I  am  endeavoring  to  get  at  the  truth,"  thundered 
Bloodgood.  "But  this  is  a  sample  of  the  honesty  with 
which  this  matter  has  been  presented  here." 

But  while  the  representatives  of  the  corporations 
were  endeavoring  to  show  their  companies  were  injured 
by  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Equalization,  others  con- 
tended that  the  report  was  more  favorable  to  the  cor- 
porations than  to  The  Public.85 

Differences  over  the  reliability  of  the  two  estimates 
were  by  no  means  the  only  questions  brought  into  issue. 

At  the  first  session,  for  example,  Senator  Kehoe 
raised  the  point  that  the  problem  before  the  Legislature 
was  to  ascertain  whether  the  taxes  paid  by  the  public 
service  corporations  were  sufficient  to  meet  the  reason- 
able expenses  of  the  State  government.  Kehoe  pointed 
out  that  when  The  People  had  voted  to  relieve  the  cor- 
porations of  paying  county  and  municipal  taxes,  they 
had  done  so  understanding  that  the  corporations  were 
to  bear  the  burden  of  the  expenses  of  State  government. 
Kehoe  contended  that  the  problem  before  the  Legislature 

85  E.  P.  E.  Troy  of  San  Francisco  charged  that  the  Board's 
report  had  been  prepared  without  public  hearings  of  which  The 
People  had  been  notified.  The  Board's  complicated  report,  he 
said,  was  presented  to  the  Legislature  without  the  Legislature 
having  time  or  opportunity  to  examine  it  closely. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      93 

was  to  ascertain  whether  the  corporations  were  meeting 
this  obligation. 

Assemblyman  Guiberson  and  Senator  Curtin  prompt- 
ly took  Kehoe  up  on  this  point.  Guiberson  insisted  that 
such  a  position  was  unfair  to  the  corporations.  Curtin 
held  that  Court  decisions  required  the  proportion  of 
taxes  to  be  equitable. 

Senator  Avey  asked  if  the  position  of  Messrs.  Curtin 
and  Guiberson,  and  the  gentlemen  representing  the  cor- 
porations, was  that  the  ad  valorem  tax  paid  by  The 
People  shall  be  proportionately  the  same  as  the  income 
tax  paid  by  the  corporations. 

He  was  told  that  it  was. 

"Then,"  demanded  Avey,  "why  have  we  the  two 
systems?  The  public  is  required  to  pay  an  ad  valorem 
tax;  the  taxes  on  the  corporations  are  an  income  tax 
on  their  gross  earnings." 

Senator  Avey's  question  received  no  satisfying  an- 
swer. 

Another  question — which  was  not  answered — would 
have  fixed  physical  valuation  of  the  railroads  within  the 
State.  The  attorneys  and  experts  of  the  railroads  were 
'before  the  committee  prepared  to  say  dogmatically  that 
the  actual  value  of  the  holdings  of  the  general  taxpayers 
of  the  State  was  $7,028,967,842.  But  they  were  not 
prepared  to  give  the  value  of  the  property  of  their  own 
corporations. 

Finally,  Senator  Caminetti  demanded  of  them  a 
statement  of  the  actual  value  of  railroad  properties  in 
the  State.  The  Senator  held  that  no  comparison  could 
be  made  between  the  relative  value  of  the  property 
upon  which  The  People  pay  taxes  and  the  property  of 


94      19*3  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

the  corporations,  until  the  value  of  the  property  of  the 
corporations  was  known.  The  corporation  attorneys 
stated  they  had  no  such  information,  and  referred 
Caminetti  to  the  report  of  the  State  Board  of  Equaliza- 
tion, the  accuracy  of  which  the  corporation  attorneys 
and  experts  were  calling  into  question. 

"You  seem  to  know  all  about  The  People's  busi- 
ness," thundered  back  Caminetti,  "but  you  know  very 
little  about  your  own.  It  is  not  fair  that  you  have  not 
the  actual  value  of  the  Southern  Pacific  property  here." 

Another  point  emphasized  before  the  committees 
was,  that  the  public  service  corporations  are  able — and 
permitted- — to  charge  their  taxes  to  their  "operating  ex- 
penses." These  "operating  expenses"  are  taken  into 
consideration  when  the  rates  which  the  public  service 
corporations  are  permitted  to  exact  are  computed,  and 
the  corporations  are  permitted  to  collect  back  their 
taxes  from  the  general  public.  Such  corporations,  there- 
fore, in  effect,  pay  no  taxes  at  all,  but  act  as  sort  of 
deputy  State  tax  collectors,  collecting  the  taxes  from 
the  general  public  under  the  form  of  rates,  and  turning 
the  taxes  thus  collected  over  to  the  State  Treasurer. 

The  joint  committee  was  also  given  further  startling 
insights  into  the  practical  working  of  the  taxation 
scheme. 

The  railroad  attorneys  cited,  for  example,  the  fact 
that  reduction  in  railroad  rates  made  by  the  State  Rail- 
road Commission,  had  reduced  the  State's  revenue. 
This  contention  was  based  on  the  fact  that  adjustment 
of  rates  by  the  Commission  had  resulted  in  a  saving  to 
The  People  in  freight  rates  of  approximately  $2,000,000 
a  year.  The  railroad  people  claimed  that  the  earnings 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      95 

of  the  railroads  were  reduced  to  that  extent.  As  the 
railroads  paid  a  tax  of  4  per  cent,  on  their  gross  earn- 
ings, this  meant,  they  held,  a  reduction  in  State  revenues 
of  $80,000.88 

A  more  convincing  illustration  was  furnished  by  the 
loss  of  the  Southern  California  orange  crop  by  the 
unprecedented  freeze  of  1913.  It  was  estimated  that 
the  loss  to  the  railroads  of  business  within  the  State 
because  of  the  freeze  would  be  approximately  $2,000,- 
000.  The  railroads'  gross  earnings  were  reduced  by 
that  amount.  Automatically  the  railroads'  taxes  were 
reduced  four  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  loss  in  gross 
earnings,  or  $80,000. 

Thus,  because  of  the  freeze  the  railroads  lost  part 
of  their  income,  and  their  taxes  were  proportionately 
reduced. 

Many  orange  and  lemon  growers  lost  not  only  all 
of  their  income  for  the  year,  but  their  groves  as  well. 


86  Charles  R.  Detrick,  Secretary  of  the  State  Railroad  Commis- 
sion, disputes  this.  Detrick  contends  that  legitimate  reduction  in 
railroad  rates  tends  to  increase  business  for  the  railroads,  and 
hence  their  gross  incomes. 

La  Follette  in  his  "Personal  Narrative  of  Political  Experiences" 
claims  as  much  for  the  reduction  of  rates  in  Wisconsin. 

"The  books  (of  the  Wisconsin  railroad  companies),  La  Follette 
says,  "are  kept  exactly  as  the  commission  orders  them  to  be  kept. 
These  accounts  show  that  while  during  the  first  five  years  of  its 
existence  the  commission  reduced  rates  by  more  than  $2,000,000  a 
year,  the  net  earnings  of  the  railroads  of  Wisconsin  increased 
relatively  just  a  little  more  than  the  net  earnings  for  all  railroads 
in  the  United  States.  The  increase  in  Wisconsin  was  18.45  per 
cent.,  and  in  the  United  States  it  was  18.41  per  cent.  How  did 
this  come  about?  Simply  from  the  fact  that  the  decrease  in  rates 
for  freight  and  passengers  was  followed  by  an  enormous  increase 
in  the  amount  of  freight  and  number  of  passengers  carried.  So  it 
happened  that,  notwithstanding  the  reduction  in  rates,  there  was 
an  actual  increase  of  nearly  20  per  cent,  in  revenues." 

Reduction  in  a  public  service  corporation's  gross  receipts,  does 
not,  therefore,  necessarily  follow  a  reduction  in  rates. 


96      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

But  their  taxes  continued  the  same  as  though  there  had 
been  no  loss  of  crop  and  groves.86* 

In  the  event  of  a  general  calamity,  such  as  the  earth- 
quake of  1906,  for  example,  it  was  seen  that  under  the 
new  system,  should  all  the  business  of  the  corporations 
be  suspended,  the  State  would  have  no  taxes  from 
them  at  all.  In  that  event  not  only  would  the  afflicted 
general  taxpayers  have  all  the  county,  municipal  and 
district  taxes  to  pay,  but  they  would  be  called  upon  to 
bear  the  greater  part  of  the  burden  of  State  taxation 
as  well. 

From  the  mass  of  evidence  before  the  joint  commit- 
tee, a  majority  of  the  members  took  the  ground  that 
the  public  service  corporations,  as  a  whole,  were  not 
paying  proportionately  as  high  taxes  as  the  general 
taxpayer. 

But  immediately  the  committee  was  confronted  with 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  smaller  corporations  were 
paying  proportionately  much  higher  taxes  than  was  the 
general  taxpayer. 

Had  it  been  possible  to  increase  the  rates  of  the  cor- 
porations that  were  not  paying  enough,  and  to  reduce 
the  rates  of  those  which  were  paying  proportionately 
too  much,  the  committee's  task  would  have  been  com- 
paratively easy.  But  under  the  new  scheme  of  taxation 
this  was  not  possible.  All  the  corporations  of  each 


sea  Since  this  was  in  type,  the  statement  has  been  made  that 
Southern  California  assessors  have  taken  the  "freeze"  into  consid- 
eration when  assessing  citrus  fruit  land.  But  however  this  may 
be,  the  fact  remains  that  Southern  California  citrus  fruit  growers 
still  pay  taxes,  although  ALL  their  income  for  the  year,  in  many 
cases,  was  cut  off.  Had  ALL  the  income  of  the  railroads  been 
cut  off,  the  railroads  would,  on  their  operative  property,  have  paid 
no  taxes. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      97 

group,  under  the  taxation  plan,  had  to  be  increased  in 
the  same  proportion,  or  not  at  all.  To  illustrate: 

At  the  rates  being  paid  by  the  gas  and  electric  com- 
panies, the  Northern  California  Power  Company  was 
paying,  according  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Equal- 
ization, the  equivalent  of  an  ad  valorem  tax  of  $0.3089 
on  the  $100  valuation;  the  generad  public  was  paying 
$1.1386.  To  secure  a  tax  from  this  particular  power 
company,  proportionate  to  that  paid  by  the  general  tax- 
payer, its  rate  would  have  had  to  be  increased  268  per 
cent.  This  increase  would  have  established  equality 
between  the  Northern  California  Power  Company  and 
the  general  taxpayer,  but  how  about  the  Davenport 
Light  and  Power  Company? 

The  Davenport  Light  and  Power  Company  was  al- 
ready paying  $4.4112  on  each  $100  of  valuation  of  its 
property,  more  than  three  times  the  ad  valorem  rate 
paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  But  if  the  Northern 
California  Power  Company's  rate  were  increased  268 
per  cent.,  the  rate  of  the  Davenport  company  would 
have  to  be  increased  268  per  cent  also.  This  would 
make  the  Davenport  company's  rate  $16.2332  on  the 
$100  valuation. 

Objection  may  be  raised  that  the  Davenport  com- 
pany is  a  small  concern  and  not  typical.  The  answer  to 
that  is,  of  course,  that  it  is  no  answer  at  all.  There  is 
no  good  reason  why  one  company,  however  small, 
should  pay  more  than  $4  taxes  on  each  $100  worth  of 
its  property,  while  another  company,  however  large  it 
may  be,  pays  only  thirty  cents. 

However,  the  Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Electric  Corpo- 
ration, to  use  another  example,  is  not  a  small  company. 


98      1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

The  estimate  of  the  value  of  its  property  as  made  by 
the  Board  of  Equalization,  was  $13,384,203,  while  that 
of  the  Northern  California  Power  Company  was  $9,861,- 
219.  The  State  taxes  paid  by  the  Los  Angeles  com- 
pany in  1912  amounted  to  $158,256.96;  the  State  taxes 
that  year  paid  by  the  Northern  California  Power  were 
$30,469.11.  If  the  rate  paid  by  the  Northern  Califor- 
nia Power  Company  were  raised  268  per  cent,  to  cor- 
respond with  the  rate  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer,  its 
taxes  would  have  been  raised  268  per  cent.,  or  to 
$112,126.  But  in  this  event  the  taxes  of  the  Los  An- 
geles Company  would  have  to  be  raised  268  per  cent, 
also.  Had  the  Los  Angeles  Company's  rate  been  the 
same  as  that  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer,  $1.1386, 
that  company  would  have  paid  as  taxes  in  1912,  $152,- 
392.53.  But  it  actually  paid  nearly  $6,000  more  than 
this,  $158,256.96,  or  $1.1824  on  the  $100  valuation. 
Were  the  rate  of  the  Northern  California  Power  Com- 
pany to  be  increased  268  per  cent,  to  raise  it  to  the 
rate  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer,  then  under  the  new 
tax  scheme,  the  rate,  of  the  Los  Angeles  Company 
would  have  to  be  increased  268  per  cent.  also.  This 
would  raise  the  Los  Angeles  Company  rate  from  $1.1824 
on  the  $100  valuation  to  $4.3512;  and  the  amount  of 
taxes  paid  by  the  Los  Angeles  Company  from  $158,- 
256.96  to  $582,385.60. 

It  will  be  seen  that  to  increase  the  rate  paid  by 
the  gas  and  electric  companies  to  compel  the  Northern 
California  Power  Company  to  pay  the  same  propor- 
tionate tax  as  the  general  taxpayer,  would  have  worked 
the  Los  Angeles  company  serious  injustice. 

Nevertheless,  viewed   from  another  angle,  the  Los 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure      99 

Angeles  company  paid  nearly  $50,000  taxes  less  than 
would  have  been  its  proportionate  share,  had  it  been 
taxed  on  the  same  basis  as  the  general  taxpayer  of 
Los  Angeles  County. 

According  to  the  Board  of  Equalization's  figures, 
the  general  taxpayers  of  Los  Angeles  County  paid  in 
1912,  not  $1.1386  on  the  $100  valuation,  but  $1.52., 
Had  the  Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Electric  Company  paid 
at  the  same  rate  as  the  general  taxpayers  of  its  home 
county,  its  taxes  would  have  been  not  the  $158,256.96, 
the  amount  collected,  but  $203,439.88,  $45,182.92  more 
than  the  company  actually  paid. 

Thus  viewed  from  different  angles  the  taxes  of  the 
Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Electric  Company  would  have 
been: 

(1)  At  the   rate   paid  by  the   Northern   California 
Power  Company  ($0.3089  on  the  $100  valuation),  $41,- 
343.80. 

(2)  At  the  rate  paid  on  estimated  actual  values  by 
the  general  taxpayers  of  all  California  ($1.1386  on  the 
$100  valuation)   $152,392.53. 

(3)  At  the  rate   which  the  company  actually  paid 
($1.1824  on  the  $100),  $158,256.96. 

(4)  At   the   rate    which   the   general   taxpayers    of 
Los  Angeles  County  paid   ($1.52  on  the  $100),  $203,- 
439.88. 

(5)  At  the  rate  to  which  its  rate  would  have  been 
increased   ($4.3512  on  the  $100),  had  the  rate  of  the 
Northern  California  Power  Company  been  raised  to  the 
rate  paid  by  the  general  taxpayers  on  all  property  in 
the  State— $582,385.60. 

(6)  At  the  rate  actually  paid  by  the  Davenport  Light 


ioo    1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

and  Power  Company  ($4.4112  on  the  $100),  $590,403.96. 

The  joint  committee  was  charged  with  the  problem 
of  equalizing  the  rates  between  the  corporations  and 
the  general  taxpayer. 

And  very  frankly  the  members  of  the  committee  rec- 
ognized they  had  not  the  training  for  such  a  task,  nor, 
even  though  they  had  the  training,  they  had  not,  in 
the  brief  period  of  a  legislative  session,  the  time  for  it. 
And,  finally,  the  conviction  grew  that,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  new  taxation  scheme,  equalization  of 
taxes  in  California  is  an  impossibility. 

The  Joint  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  had 
thirty-two  members.  It  was  apparent  that  no  under- 
standing among  them  could  be  reached.  Eight  mem- 
bers,87 therefore — Gates,  Thompson,  Boynton  and  Breed 
of  the  Senate ;  Guill,  Sutherland,  Bohnett  and  Chandler 
of  the  Assembly — met  in  conference  to  consider  the 
course  to  be  taken. 

The  eight  met  early  in  the  evening  of  January  24. 
They  were  in  session  until  5  o'clock  the  following  morn- 
ing. It  was  said  that  at  the  conclusion  of  their  delib- 
erations several  of  them  were  asleep.  However  this 
may  be,  they  decided  upon  the  increases  to  be  made  in 
the  rates  paid  by  public  service  corporations  on  their 
gross  earnings  as  follows : 

For  railroads,  including  street  railroads,  from  4  per 
cent,  to  4^4  per  cent.,  an  increase  over  the  old  rate  of 
per  cent. 


87  Kehoe  of  Humboldt  was  to  have  been  invited  to  this  con- 
ference. The  Progressive  element  wanted  him.  But  there  were 
powerful  interests  that  did  not  want  him.  Kehoe  was  not  invited. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure    101 

For  car  companies,  from  3  per  cent,  to  4  per  cent., 
an  increase  over  the  old  rate  of  33^  per  cent. 

For  telephone  and  telegraph  companies,  from  5l/2 
per  cent,  to  4  1/5  per  cent.,  an  increase  over  the  old 
rate  of  20  per  cent. 

For  gas  and  electric  companies,  from  4  per  cent,  to 
43/5  per  cent.,  an  increase  over  the  old  rate  of  15  per 
cent. 

The  rate  paid  by  insurance  companies  on  their  gross 
premiums  was  increased  from  \l/2  per  cent,  to  1^4  Per 
cent.  The  rates  paid  by  banks  and  by  express  compa- 
nies were  left  unchanged. 

On  the  ad  valorem  basis,  if  the  estimates  of  the 
Board  of  Equalization  were  correct,  this  increased  the 
rates  paid  on  each  $100  valuation  by  the  several  groups 
as  a  whole,  as  follows : 

On  railroads,  including  street  railroads,  from  $0.9092 
to  $1.0797. 

On  car  companies  from  $0.8813  to  $1.1750. 

On  telephone  and  telegraph  companies  from  $0.9060 
to  $1.0872. 

On  gas  and  electric  companies  from  $0.7500  to 
$0.8625.88 

With  the  exception  of  that  of  the  car  companies, 
none  of  these  rates  equaled  the  estimated  $1.1386  on 
the  $100  valuation  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  Par- 
ticularly was  the  small  increase  in  the  rates  paid  by  the 
gas  and  electric  companies  criticized. 

88  According  to  estimates  compiled  at  the  time,  these  increases 
In  rates,  with  the  natural  Increase  of  corporation  earnings,  would 
bring  in  additional  revenue  to  the  total  of  $3,383,168  for  the  bien- 
nial period  or  $1,691,584  a  year.  It  was  held  that  this  would 
remove  all  danger  of  a  deficit. 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
RIVERSIDE 


IO2    1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

The  gas  and  electric  companies,  as  a  whole  paying 
the  lowest  rate  of  all  the  groups,  were  given  the  small- 
est percentage  of  increase.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
of  the  smaller  gas  and  electric  companies  were,  on  the 
ad  valorem  basis,  being  taxed  higher  than  any  other 
class  of  taxpayers  of  the  State.  To  have  increased  the 
rate  by  a  percentage  high  enough  to  compel  the  large 
gas  and  electric  companies  89  to  pay  their  fair  propor- 
tionate tax  would  have  worked  enormous  hardship  upon 
the  smaller  companies  already  paying  from  two  to  four 
times  the  rate  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  The  same 
was  true  of  the  telephone  and  telegraph  companies 
group.  To  a  less  degree  it  was  true  of  the  railroads 
and  street  railroads  group.  The  adjustment  was,  ac- 
cording to  the  data  given  by  the  State  Board  of  Equal- 
ization, inequitable  as  between  the  general  taxpayer  and 
the  corporations;  it  was  inequitable  as  between  the  cor- 
porations. 

But  the  joint  committee  apparently  could  offer  no 
better  solution.  The  rates  fixed  by  the  four  Senators 
and  four  Assemblymen  were  accepted  by  the  committee. 


89  One  of  the  greatest  beneficiaries  of  this  small  increase  in  the 
rates  paid  by  gas  and  electric  companies,  was  the  Pacific  Gas  and 
Electric  Company.  Under  the  old  rate  it  had  been  paying  $0.7037 
on  the  $100  valuation;  under  the  increase  its  rate  was  made 
$0.8092.  The  ad  valorem  rate  on  the  $100  for  the  Pacific  Light 
and  Power  Corporation  was  increased  from  $0.7089  to  $0.8152;  of 
the  Northern  California  Power  Company  from  $0.3089  to  $0.3552;  of 
the  San  Joaquin  Light  and  Power  Company  from  $0.5345  to  $0.6146; 
of  Southern  California  Edison  Co.  from  $0.7990  to  $0.9188;  of  the 
Sierra  and  San  Francisco  Power  Company  from  $0.8035  to  $0.9240; 
of  the  "Western  States  Gas  and  Electric  from  $0.6793  to  $0.7812. 

On  the  other  hand  the  ad  valorem  rate  of  the  Davenport  Light 
and  Power  Company  was  raised  from  $4.4112  on  the  $100  valuation 
to  $5.0728;  that  of  the  Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Electric  Corporation 
from  $1.1824  to  $1.3597;  that  of  the  Vallejo  Electric  Light  and 
Power  Company  from  $3.6700  to  $4.2205;  that  of  the  Consumers' 
Light  and  Power  Company  from  $3.7230  to  $4.2814,  etc.,  etc. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure    103 

On  the  recommendation  of  the  committee,   Senate  and 
Assembly  accepted  them,  also. 

The  Senate  accepted  them  without  opposition.  In  the 
Assembly,  however,  Finnegan  of  Nevada  City  offered 
amendments  to  increase  the  rates  paid  by  railroad  com- 
panies on  their  gross  earnings  to  5  per  cent.,  of  tele- 
phone and  telegraph  companies  to  42/5  per  cent.,  of 
gas  and  electric  companies  to  6  per  cent.  Finnegan  also 
offered  amendments  to  increase  the  rates  paid  by  insur- 
ance companies  to  2  per  cent,  of  their  gross  premiums, 
and  the  tax  on  bank  capital  stock,  accumulated  surplus 
and  undivided  profits,  from  1  to  \l/2  per  cent.  These 
amendments  were  defeated,  however,  by  a  vote  of  7  to 
66.90  The  Assembly  was  apparently  acting  on  its  faith 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation.  The  Joint  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Tax- 
ation had  acted  on  its  faith  in  the  judgment  in  the  eight 
men  who  had  sat  up  all  night  to  decide  upon  the  per- 
centages of  increase.  Some  of  the  eight  are  reported 
to  have  been  incapacitated  by  sleep  when  the  decision 
was  reached.  Thus  even  less  than  eight  legislators  out 
of  120  are  responsible  for  the  percentages  of  increase 
agreed  upon. 

90  The  vote  by  which  the  Finnegan  amendments  were  defeated 
was: 

For  the  amendments,  and  to  increase  the  rates — Cram,  Dower, 
Finnegan,  Polsley,  Schmitt,  Stuckenbruck,  and  Wyllie — 1. 

Against  the  amendments,  and  to  leave  the  rates  at  the  percent- 
ages fixed  by  the  joint  committee — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bene- 
dict, Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Ford,  Gabbert,  Gates, 
Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Kings- 
ley,  Kuck,  Libby,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser, 
Murray,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott, 
Shanahan,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Tulloch, 
Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  White,  Woodley,  and  Young — 66. 


IO4    I9J3  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure 

The  debate  over  Finnegan's  amendments  had  one 
curious  feature.  Assemblyman  Schmitt  of  San  Fran- 
cisco acted  not  unlike  an  attorney  who  aims  to  get  some- 
thing into  the  record.  For  some  reason,  Schmitt  con- 
sidered it  necessary  to  question  the  members  of  the 
Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  as  to  their  reason 
for  advising  increase  in  rates.  Schmitt  was  particularly 
desirous  of  knowing  whether  the  increase  had  been 
made  because  of  a  deficit  in  the  State  Treasury. 

Although  told  repeatedly  that  the  increase  had  been 
made  to  equalize  taxes,  not  to  meet  a  deficit,  Schmitt 
persisted  in  his  curious  questioning. 

"The  committees  met,"  Guiberson  of  Kings  finally 
thundered  back  at  him,  "to  equalize  the  tax  rates.  They 
did  this  regardless  of  whether  or  not  a  deficit  existed." 

The  Joint  Committees'  rates  were  accepted  in  the 
Assembly  by  a  vote  of  76  to  0.  In  the  Senate  the  vote 
for  them  was  35  to  O.91 

The  unsatisfactory  settlement  of  the  revenue  problem 
resulted  in  a  movement  in  both  Houses  to  abolish  the 
new  system  of  taxation  and  restore  the  old.  To  this 


fli  The  vote  for  the  committee's  rates  was: 

In  the  Assembly — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary, 
Chandler,  Clark,  Win.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Ford,  Gabbert, 
Gates,  Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle,  In- 
man,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A. ;  Judson, 
Killingsworth,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Libby,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Mor- 
genstern,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley, 
Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Shearer, 
Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tulloch, 
Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  White,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young 
—76. 

In  the  Senate — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban,  Birdsall,  Boynton, 
Breed.  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cassidy, 
Cogswell,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Jull- 
liard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford, 
Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 35. 


1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Measure    105 

end  a  constitutional  amendment  was  introduced  in  the 
Senate  by  Avey  and  in  the  Assembly  by  Cram. 

The  Avey  amendment,  through  the  error  of  a  clerk, 
was  sent  back  to  the  Senate  with  recommendation  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  that 
it  be  adopted.  The  committee,  however,  had  taken  no 
such  action.  While  a  majority  of  its  members  recog- 
nized the  weaknesses  of  the  new  system  of  taxation, 
they  were  not  prepared  to  return  to  the  old  system. 
On  motion  of  Senator  Thompson  the  amendment  was 
returned  to  the  committee.  Nothing  more  came  of  it. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  Cram  amendment  was  reported 
out  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxa- 
tion without  recommendation.  The  Assembly  took  no 
action.92 

The  1913  Legislature  adjourned,  as  the  1911  Legis- 
lature had  done,  with  the  State's  revenue  and  taxation 
problem  unsolved. 


92  The  argument  used  against  reverting  to  the  old  plan  of  taxa- 
tion was  presented  by  the  Fresno  Republican  in  its  issue  of 
January  16,  1913,  as  follows: 

"As  to  the  demerits  of  the  old  system  (of  taxation)  informed 
opinion  is  unanimous.  It  has  no  defenders  except  the  uninformed. 
As  to  the  abstract  desirability  of  the  new  system,  educated 
opinion  was  practically  unanimous  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.  It 
is  not  quite  unanimous  now,  and  the  slight  division  of  opinion 
may  indicate  that  we  are  approaching  the  development  of  still  a 
newer  system,  which  will  turn  out  to  be  better  than  this  one. 
That  would  at  least  not  be  an  unprecedented  situation  in  the  evo- 
lution of  governmental  devices.  But  at  any  rate,  the  only  visible 
division  of  opinion,  among  tax  experts,  is  between  the  system  to 
which  California  has  attained  and  a  movement  forward  to  a  better 
one.  There  is  no  movement,  among  those  equipped  to  speak  with 
authority,  backward  to  the  old  system.  And  there  would  be  no 
such  movement  in  the  California  Legislature,  except  for  an  in- 
stinctive dissatisfaction  with  a  system  which  is  now  not  working 
perfectly  and  a  line-of-least-reaction  to  the  only  other  popularly 
familiar  system." 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  RECESS. 

After  being  in  session  thirty  days,  the  Legislature, 
in  accordance  with  the  new  provision  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution,93 took  its  mid-session,  or,  as  it  was  called, 
constitutional  recess.  The  amended  Constitution  re- 
quires that  this  recess  be  for  not  less  than  thirty  days. 
The  Legislature  made  it  thirty-three. 

The  theory  of  the  mid-session  recess  period  was, 
that  it  would  give  The  People  opportunity  to  inform 
themselves  of  the  measures  which  the  Legislature  con- 
templated enacting.  Under  the  assumption  that  The 
People  would  read  the  pending  measures,  and  pass 
upon  them  intelligently,  it  was  held  that  public  opinion 
would  be  aroused  to  prevent  the  passage  of  bad  bills 
and  to  insist  upon  the  passage  of  good. 

The  Legislature  had  acted  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  the  new  provision.  Although  there  was  noth- 
ing in  the  recess-providing  amendment  to  prevent  action 
on  bills  during  the  first  part  of  the  session,  no  attempt 
was  made  to  hasten  the  passage  of  bills :  even  commit- 
tee work  was  restricted.  A  number  of  measures,  nota- 
bly the  bill  increasing  the  rates  of  taxation  of  public 
service  corporations,  were  passed,  because  the  situation 
required  immediate  action.  But  these  necessary  excep- 
tions were  few.  The  Legislature  met,  received  bills, 

93  See  State  Constitution,  Art.  IV,  Sec.  2. 


The  Constitutional  Recess  107 

provided  for  their  printing,  and  then  took  a  recess  for 
thirty-three  days,  to  give  The  People  of  California 
opportunity  to  take  stock  of  what  the  Legislature  pro- 
posed to  do. 

The  Legislature  did  more.  It  provided  for  distri- 
bution of  the  bills  throughout  the  State.  Resolutions 
were  adopted  directing  that  sets  of  bills  should  be  sent 
on  request  to  public  libraries,  high  schools,  Chambers 
of  Commerce  and  Boards  of  Trade.94  In  addition  each 
member  was  permitted  to  send  full  sets  to  not  more 
than  ten  constituents.95  This  ensured  distribution  in 
every  county,  and  in  practically  every  town  in  the  State. 

When  the  Legislature  took  its  constitutional  recess, 
the  proposed  work  of  the  session  was  literally  in  the 
hands  of  The  People.  The  Legislature  had  done  its 
part.  It  remained  for  The  People  of  California  to  do 
theirs. 

The  part  which  The  People  were  to  do  was  at  best 
vague,  and  little  understood.  If  they  were  to  do  any- 


94  In  the  Senate  strong  opposition  developed  to  sending  the 
bills  to  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Boards  of  Trade.  A  motion 
to  exclude  these  bodies  from  the  benefits  of  the  resolution  was 
defeated  by  a  close  vote  of  14  to  19,  as  follows: 

To  exclude  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Boards  of  Trade — 
Senators  Avey,  Brown,  Bryant.  Butler,  Caminetti,  Carr,  Cohn, 
Finn,  Grant,  Hans,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  and  Regan — 14. 

Against  excluding  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Boards  of 
Trade — Senators  Anderson,  Boynton,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Cogswell, 
Curtin,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Lyon,  Owens,  Rush,  San- 
ford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 19. 

»5  The  magnitude  of  this  work  was  not  appreciated,  even  by 
the  members  of  the  Legislature.  The  clerks  left  in  charge  soon 
discovered  what  it  meant,  however.  Some  idea  of  it  can  be  gath- 
ered from  the  fact  that  the  one  provision  that  each  member 
should  be  permitted  to  send  10  sets  of  bills  to  as  many  constitu- 
ents involved  the  handling  of  4,654,400  pieces  of  printed  matter. 
At  the  close  of  the  first  part  of  the  session  3887  bills  and  con- 
stitutional amendments  had  been  introduced.  Each  member  sent 
out  ten  sets,  1200  sets  for  the  120  members.  Each  set  contained 
3887  pieces  of  printed  matter,  4,664,400  in  all. 


io8  The  Constitutional  Recess 

thing  they  were  to  go  through  the  3738  bills  and  149 
constitutional  amendments,  a  total  of  3887  measures, 
which,  when  the  recess  was  taken,  were  pending.  They 
had  thirty-three  days  for  the  work.  Legislation  had 
been  brought  home  to  the  plain  citizen.  Incidentally, 
some  of  the  difficulties  of  law  enactment  under  the 
present  system  had  been  brought  home  to  him  also. 

Unquestionably,  however,  there  was  general  interest 
in  the  opportunity  offered  to  participate  in  legislation. 
But  there  was  no  clear  understanding  of  what  that  op- 
portunity meant  or  involved.  In  various  parts  of  the 
State  more  or  less  systematic  study  of  the  bills  was 
undertaken.  There  was  plenty  of  work  done,  but  no 
general  or  connected  investigation  on  the  part  of  the 
entire  people.96 

In  Los  Angeles  citizens  met  in  convention,  ap- 
pointed committees  to  take  up  the  various  subjects  of 
legislation,  and  spent  practically  the  entire  recess  period 
in  intelligent  and  systematic  consideration  of  the  various 
measures.  The  findings  of  this  convention  were  sent 
to  the  several  members  of  the  Legislature.  The  work 
was  probably  the  best  that  was  done  in  any  community 
or  by  any  group  of  citizens.  That  it  had  the  least 
weight  in  the  passage  or  defeat  of  any  measure,  how- 
ever, is  very  much  to  be  doubted. 

96  That  the  Legislature  should  take  the  divided  session  seri- 
ously resulted  In  much  ridicule  from  that  portion  of  the  press 
unfriendly  to  the  Progressive  element.  The  San  Francisco  Chron- 
icle was  particularly  persistent  in  its  attacks. 

"The  Chronicle,"  said  the  Fresno  Republican  in  commenting 
upon  its  attitude,  "first  jeered  at  the  Legislature  because  It  might 
obey  the  law.  Now  it  jeers  because  it  has  determined  to  obey 
It.  ...  The  Chronicle's  opinion  of  enthusiasms,  ideals  and 
patriotism  is  exactly  analogous  to  a  prostitute's  opinion  of  virtue. 
It  denies  the  existence  of  any  such  thing,  and  berates  those  who 
profess  them  as  worse  than  frankly  wrong,  because  they  add 
hypocrisy  to  the  other  vices." 


The  Constitutional  Recess  109 

At  San  Francisco,  the  various  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers of  Senate  and  Assembly  went  before  civic  bodies 
to  explain  the  pending-  measures.  There  was  at  least 
some  good  resulted  from  this — San  Francisco  citizens 
had  an  opportunity  to  observe  the  type  of  legislators 
the  San  Francisco  politicians  pick  for  them.  But  that 
the  citizens  of  San  Francisco  gained  any  important  in- 
formation of  the  general  work  before  the  Legislature, 
or  that  any  San  Francisco  legislator  was  influenced 
one  way  or  the  other  by  the  meetings  is  improbable. 

In  many  of  the  country  districts,  the  Senator  and 
Assemblyman  made  it  his  business  to  call  meetings  for 
discussion  of  the  various  measures.  In  most  cases  these 
meetings  were  well  attended,  but  as  a  general  thing  The 
People  wanted  to  hear  about  the  bills.  They  had  few 
suggestions  to  offer. 

Various  publications  attempted  to  give  their  readers 
some  idea  of  what  the  bills  under  consideration  were. 
The  San  Francisco  Call  started  out  boldly  with  this 
work,  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way.  proved  too  much 
for  the  Call.  The  San  Francisco  Recorder  divided  the 
3887  measures  under  227  heads,  and  published  a  synop- 
sis of  each  bill  and  a  complete  index.  This  work  ap- 
peared in  pamphlet  form.  It  was  valuable — to  experts 
in  legislation. 

The  Sacramento  Bee  grouped  the  more  important 
bills  under  twenty-six  heads,  and  devoted  two  columns 
a  day  to  them.  In  this  way  the  Bee  was  able  to  give 
its  readers  an  idea  of  what  perhaps  500  of  the  3887 
measures  meant.  The  Bee,  however,  was  the  only  news- 
paper in  California  to  attempt  any  such  systematic 


no  The  Constitutional  Recess 

work,  or  to  devote  so  much  space  to  it,  or  to  undertake 
the   expense. 

Generally  speaking,  The  People  did  not  avail  them- 
selves of  the  opportunity  offered  by  the  legislative  recess 
to  study  bills,  because: 

(1)  There  was  no  practical  way  of  informing  the 
general  public  as  to  just  what  the  measures  meant. 

(2)  There  was  no  time  within  the  thirty-three  day 
period    for    anything   more   than    casual    study    of   the 
measures. 

On  the  other  land,  where  organized  effort  was 
made  to  inform  the  public  on  the  merits  of  a  good 
measure,  the  public  responded  promptly,  and  united  in 
demanding  its  passage. 

This  was  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the 
Red  Light  Abatement  act.  This  measure  had  been 
side-tracked  at  the  1911  session.97  The  measure  was 
unquestionably  slated  for  side-tracking  at  the  session  of 
1913.  But  during  the  constitutional  recess  proponents 
of  the  measure  held  meetings  throughout  the  State  to 
explain  its  purposes  to  the  public.  The  result  was  a 
demand  for  its  passage  which  even  legislators  opposed 
to  it  could  not  resist.98  The  measure  passed  both 
Houses  and  was  signed  by  the  Governor.99 

In  marked  contrast  to  the  general  inability  of  the 
public  was  the  alert  interest  of  individuals  and  corpora- 
tions directly  concerned  in  pending  legislation.  They 

»7  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  173. 

98  Assemblyman  Nelson  of  Humboldt,  chairman  of  the  Assembly 
Public    Morals    Committee,     states    that    during    the    Legislature 
recess,   he  received  on  the  average  fifty  letters  a  day  urging  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  approximately  1600  for  the  recess  period. 

99  See  Chapter  XXVII. 


The  Constitutional  Recess  1 1 1 

were  not  uninformed.  They  took  pains  to  have  every 
bill  sent  them  as  soon  as  printed.100  Trained  experts 
went  over  every  paragraph.  Ingenious  clerks 101  pre- 
pared plausible  arguments  to  show  that  bills  beneficial 
to  the  special  interests  were  beneficial  to  the  general 
public;  that  bills  calculated  to  restrict  the  activities  of 
special  interests  would  work  the  general  public  injury. 

These  arguments  were,  during  the  recess  period, 
spread  broadcast  throughout  the  State.  Every  mail 
brought  to  the  newspaper  offices  scores  of  neatly  printed 
pamphlets,  setting  forth  why  this  or  that  measure 
should  not  be  passed,  or  why  this  or  that  measure 
should  be.  After  the  Legislature  re-convened  well 
instructed  lobbyists  appeared  at  Sacramento  by  the 
scores,  to  present  the  arguments  to  the  various  members. 

All  this  costs  money,  but  public  service  corporations 
permitted  to  charge  such  expenditures  to  "operating 
expenses,"  and  collect  them  as  "rates"  from  the  general 
public,  give  no  thought  to  the  expense  of  it.  The  public 
pays. 

Thus,  the  public  cannot  afford  the  machinery  to  carry 
on  campaigns  for  the  defeat  of  bad  bills  and  the  passage 
of  good,  but  it  can  be  made  to  pay  the  expenses  of  cam- 


100  The  public  will  sometime  awaken  to  the  folly  of  permitting 
attaches    of    the    Legislature,    State    Printing    Office,    Secretary    of 
State's    Office,    and    other    State    departments    keeping    individuals 
and    corporations    informed    of    State    business.       Corporations    in 
particular  make  it  a  practice  of  keeping  public  servants   in   their 
employ.      When,     for    example,     the    public     service     corporations 
wanted  information   on  property  values,    they  paid   deputy   county 
assessors   generously   to   secure   it   for   them.     The   scandal   of  the 
Secretary  of  State's  office,  which  was  made  subject  of  Legislative 
investigation  at  the  1913  session,  originated  in  the  selling  of  infor- 
mation,   which    should   be    furnished    to    all   applicants   free,    or   if 
paid  for,  at  fixed  fees  to  be  turned  over  to  the  State  Treasurer. 

101  For  the  "clerk's"  part  in  the  work  of  the  1913  Legislature, 
see  Chapter  VIII,  page  116. 


H2  The  Constitutional  Recess 

paigns  for  the  defeat  of  bills  which  for  the  best  interest 
of  the  public  should  be  passed,  and  for  the  passage  of 
measures  which,  for  the  best  interests  of  the  public, 
should  be  defeated. 

In  the  agitation  for  and  against  measures  in  which 
large  concerns  were  interested,  Chambers  of  Commerce 
throughout  the  State  took  prominent  part.  One  of  the 
various  features  of  their  attitude  was  that  Chambers  of 
Commerce  of  widely  separated  communities  took  prac- 
tically the  same  action  on  the  measures  considered. 

For  example:  Senator  Kehoe's  bill  to  conserve  the 
productive  soil  of  California  against  sacrifice  by  gold 
dredging,  was  generally  condemned,  even  in  Southern 
California.  But  there  is  no  gold  dredging  in  Southern 
California ;  it  is  doubtful  if  many  Southern  Californians 
have  any  clear  conception  of  what  gold  dredging  is.  But 
Southern  California  Chambers  of  Commerce  condemned 
the  Kehoe  bill  in  much  the  same  terms  as  did  Chambers 
of  Commerce  of  northern  communities.  But  some  of 
the  Southern  Chambers,  later  on,  when  members  of  the 
Southern  California  legislative  delegation  had  shown 
what  dredge  mining  means,  modified  or  reversed  their 
action. 

Chambers  of  Commerce  were  particularly  active  in 
condemning  the  Boynton  Workmen's  Compensation  Act ; 
the  Kehoe  Insurance  Bill ;  measures  reducing  the  hours 
of  labor  of  women ;  measures  reducing  the  hours  of  labor 
of  children,  or  increasing  the  age  at  which  they  shall 
be  permitted  to  engage  in  gainful  occupations. 

The  unanimity  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  various 
Chambers  showed  them — or  at  least  their  Boards  of 


The  Constitutional  Recess  113 

Directors — to  be  in  close  touch  with  one  another,  and 
ready  to  act  in  accord  on  matters  of  legislation.102 

At  the  close  of  the  thirty-three  days'  recess,  the 
special  interests  were  thoroughly  informed  on  the  pend- 
ing measures.  They  had,  to  a  large  extent,  "sized  up" 
the  various  members.  They  were  prepared  to  meet  the 
new  conditions. 

They  could  no  longer,  through  the  "machine,"  have 
orders  issued  that  this  or  that  bill  be  defeated,  or  that 
this  or  that  bill  pass.  They  could  not  bribe  enough 
members  of  either  House  to  insure  their  purpose.  It 
was  well  said  of  the  1913  Legislature,  that  before  any 
bill  could  be  enacted  forty-one  Assemblymen  and  twenty- 
one  Senators — a  majority  of  each  House — had  to  be 
convinced  that  it  was  a  good  bill.  The  special  interests 
prepared  to  meet  the  new  conditions.  They  sent  to 
Sacramento  attorneys,  experts,  corporation  officials,  men 
well  informed  on  the  issues  in  which  their  principals 
were  interested.  These  agents  made  the  most  numerous, 
the  most  powerful,  the  most  remarkable  lobby  that  ever 
assembled  at  Sacramento.  They  were  there  not  to  bribe 
— for  bribery  at  the  1913  session  would  have  been 
unsafe.103  They  were  there  to  explain  and  educate. 


102  For  the  contract  made  between  the  San  Francisco  Chamber 
of  Commerce  and  the  Los  Ang-eles  Chamber  of  Commerce  to  work 
San  Francisco  substantial  injury  by  blocking  an  important  harbor 
improvement  on  the  San  Francisco  water  front,  see  "Story  of  the 
California    Legislature    of    1911,"     Chapter    XXV,    page    297.      The 
activity   of  the    San   Francisco   Chamber   of   Commerce   against   de- 
velopment   of    the    San    Francisco    municipal    railroad    system,    has 
brought   general    condemnation    upon    that    body.     It   is    noticeable 
that  one  of  the  principal  functions  of  not  a  few  of  the  Chambers 
of    Commerce   of    the    State    is    to    collect    funds    to    pay   for   local 
advertisements  in  the  Southern  Pacific  magazine — Sunset. 

103  The  fear-driven  agent  or  clerk  of  a  special  interest,  to  gain 
his    principal's    end,    will    do    for    his    corporation    what    he    would 
never  start  to  do  for  himself.     Men   who   would  not  misrepresent 


H4  The  Constitutional  Recess 

And  they  "explained"  and  "educated"  until  they  had 
the  well-intentioned  members  of  that  Legislature  in- 
volved in  a  tangle  which,  for  a  time,  threatened  the 
defeat  of  most  good  measures,  and  made  possible  the 
passage  of  not  a  few  bad  ones. 


to  gain  advantage  for  themselves,  do  misrepresent  to  gain  ad- 
vantage for  their  corporations.  Men  who  would  not  bribe  to 
accomplish  a  purpose  for  themselves  do  bribe  to  carry  out  the 
purposes  of  their  corporations.  See  Chapter  VIII. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE  LOBBY  AND  ITS  WORK. 

The  old  Southern  Pacific  "machine"  was  made  up  of 
various  privilege-seeking  corporations  and  elements, 
ranging  from  the  most  powerful  railroad  corporation  on 
the  Pacific  Coast  to  the  San  Francisco  brothel  and  dive 
industry. 

The  lobby  that  dogged  the  1913  Legislature,  in  large 
measure  represented  the  various  elements  of  the  repu- 
diated "machine." 

As  the  large  public  service  corporations  had  been  the 
backbone  of  the  old  "machine,"  so  were  the  lobbyists 
who  appeared  at  Sacramento  to  "protect"  the  interests 
of  such  corporations  the  main  dependence  of  those 
whose  purpose  it  was  to  block  progressive  policies. 
About  these  more  important  lobbyists  the  legislative 
representatives  of  lesser  privilege-seekers  grouped,  much 
the  same  as  the  lesser  privilege-seekers  themselves  had, 
in  the  old  days,  been  drawn  to  the  support  of  the  then 
powerful  corporation-controlled  political  organization. 

But  whether  agent  for  transcontinental  railroad, 
Eastern  insurance  trust,  prizefight-promoting  combina- 
tion, or  tenderloin  dive,  the  lobbyists  who  assembled  at 
Sacramento  to  oppose  progressive  policies,  were  there 
for  like  purpose,  namely,  to  hold  for  their  principals,  if 
they  could,  the  privileges  they  already  had,  and  to  grab 
more  privileges  if  opportunity  offered. 


ii6  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

The  big  fellows  of  this  lobby  numbered  the  best  the 
larger  corporations  could  command.104  The  appearance 
of  a  vice-president  of  a  transcontinental  railroad,  or  of 
a  chief  counsel,  or  of  a  department  chief,  was  not  at  all 
unusual.  Constantly  on  the  ground,  of  course,  were 
the  mere  watchers  of  legislation,  the  smaller  attorneys, 
the  claquers. 

The  vice-presidents,  the  department  chiefs,  the  gen- 
eral managers,  and  other  betitled  notables  of  public  serv- 
ice corporations  who  appeared  at  Sacramento  to  pro- 
mote the  schemes  of  the  big  privilege-seekers,  no  doubt 
appeared  very  big  fellows  to  the  clustering  small  fry. 
They  may,  too,  have  been  able  to  impress  legislators 
with  a  sense  of  their  bigness,  their  superiority  and  their 
importance.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  biggest  of 
them  fell,  with  the  most  insignificant  claquer  on  duty 
in  barroom  and  lobby,  under  the  general  designation  of 
clerks.105 


104  In  addition  to  the  lobby  representing  large  aggregations  of 
Eastern   capital,   such   as   the  Railroads,    Power  Companies,   Insur- 
ance Companies  and  the  like,  was  the  lobby  for  or  against  purely 
State    matters,    as    were    contemplated    in    such    measures    as    the 
Redlight   Abatement   act,    measures    affecting    hours    of   labor,    the 
so-called   "Blue  Sky"  bill,   the  Anti-Prizefight  bills,   saloon  closing 
bills,   etc. 

105  This    fact    is    now    generally    recognized    and    is    matter    of 
common  observation.     The  San  Francisco  Examiner,   for  example, 
in    commenting    upon    the    naming    of    Jesse    W.    Lilienthal    to    be 
president  of  the  United   Railroads,    said: 

"The  United  Railroads  is  a  subsidiary  corporation  of  the  United 
Railroads  Development  Company,  which  is  a  holding  company, 
and  legally  not  under  the  control  of  the  State  as  a  public  utility. 
No  matter  who  the  local  president  may  be,  It  is  well  understood 
In  business  circles  that  the  final  and  absolute  word  of  authority 
comes  from  New  York  and  Pittsburg,  and  it  is  feared  that  no 
matter  how  good  Mr.  Lilienthal's  intentions  may  be,  the  actual 
management  of  the  property,  by  the  same  men  who  have  owned 
It  for  nine  years,  will  be  the  same  kind  of  management  they  have 
always  provided. 

"The  sudden  announcement  of  a  change  of  heart  made  by  these 
Eastern  capitalists  who  have  so  long  disregarded  all  the  rights  of 
this  city  will  be  looked  upon  as  a  deathbed  confession  of  fright. 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  117 

As  clerks,  the  most  generously  titled  of  them  were 
at  Sacramento  to  carry  out  orders  received  from  non- 
resident superiors.  Those  superiors  had  fixed  policies 
for  their  California  clerks  to  carry  out.  The  betitled 
clerks  were  at  Sacramento  to  carry  out  those  policies, 
regardless  of  consequences  to  State  or  to  individual. 
They  might  know  their  work  to  be  against  the  best 
interests  of  their  State;  even  to  be  against  the  best 
interests  of  the  aggregation  of  wealth  that  fees  them. 
But  they  had  no  voice  in  shaping  the  policies.  As 
clerks  they  had  received  their  orders.  As  clerks,  they 
proceeded,  with  the  fear  of  the  penalty  of  failure  urging, 
to  obey. 

This  blind  obedience  was  no  new  experience  with 
them.  They  are  accustomed  to  follow  instructions,  not 
only  against  their  inclinations,  but  against  their  better 
judgment. 

When,  for  example,  in  1908  freight  rates  to  Pacific 
Coast  points  were  arbitrarily  raised  $10,000,000  a  year, 
the  bulk  of  the  increased  burden  falling  upon  California, 
local  railroad  officials  were  held  to  have  advised  against 
it.  The  additional  burden  approached  the  back-breaking 
point.  The  advice  was  ignored,  however,  and  local 
railroad  officials  proceeded  to  the  collection  of  the  addi- 
tional toll. 

When  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill  was 
before  the  1909  Senate,  it  was  known  local  railroad 

a  sort  of  sop  to  Satan  in  the  shape  of  coming  municipal  owner- 
ship. It  is  an  almost  comical  election  dodge,  and  it  Is  a  matter  of 
regret  to  hundreds  of  Mr.  Lilienthal's  devoted  friends  that  he 
should  be  selected  to  pull  the  fat  out  of  the  fire — for  It  Is  pretty 
generally  believed  among  the  well-Informed  that  the  Eastern  In- 
terests would  sacrifice  Mr.  Lilienthal  In  the  future  without  a 
minute's  hesitation  if  they  won  their  point  at  the  polls  next 
Tuesday  by  the  use  of  his  respected  name." 


u8  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

officials  advised  that  the  very  reasonable  measure  be 
not  opposed.  But  suddenly  their  support  of  the  measure 
failed  and  the  powerful  influence  of  the  Southern  Pa- 
cific Company  was  thrown  against  the  Stetson  bill. 

The  1909  Stetson  bill  was  defeated.  But  in  1911,  the 
farther-reaching  Railroad  Regulation  law,  under  which 
the  present  State  Railroad  Commission  is  acting,  was 
passed.  The  Eastern  policy-makers  no  doubt  see  now 
that  it  would  have  been  better  for  their  properties  had 
they,  in  1909,  taken  their  resident  clerks'  advice 

When  in  1905,  to  use  another  example,  word  came 
from  New  York  that  Gillett  was  to  be  made  Governor 
of  California,  the  local  "bosses,"  whom,  in  those  days, 
Californians  were  apt  to  look  upon  as  all  powerful, 
questioned  the  wisdom  of  the  selection.  But  they  were 
employed  to  obey.  They  obeyed.  The  scandal  of  the 
Santa  Cruz  convention  followed.  But  Gillett  was  nomi- 
nated. The  "bosses"  could  not  get  a  majority  vote  106  for 
him,  but  manipulation  insured  his  election  by  a  plurality 
in  spite  of  the  scandal  of  the  nominating  convention. 
None  will  say  but  that  the  head  clerks  of  the  political 
organization,  then  dominant  in  California,  did  sur- 
prisingly effective  work,  even  against  their  better  judg- 
ment, in  manipulating  for  Gillett's  election.  But  the 
Santa  Cruz  convention  was  the  beginning  of  the  end 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  "machine"  in  California.  The 
clerkly  representatives  of  Eastern  exploiters  probably 
realized  that  it  would  be.  There  is  a  point  beyond  which 

ice  At  the  1906  election,  311,975  votes  were  cast  for  Governor. 
Of  this  vote  Gillett  received  125,887;  other  candidates  for  Governor 
received  186,088.  But  Gillett  received  the  highest  vote  of  any  of 
the  other  candidates,  Bell,  his  closest  opponent  receiving  only 
117,645.  Gillett  was  elected  over  Bell  by  a  plurality  of  8,242.  He 
received  30,101  votes  less  than  a  majority. 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  119 

Californians  will  not  be  driven.  But  the  local  clerks, 
wiser  than  their  non-resident  policy-makers,  were  over- 
ruled. 

With  such  facts  before  us,  it  is  readily  understood 
why  promises  and  agreements  made  by  this  or  that  vice- 
president  of  this  or  that  railroad  or  power  company 
or  other  public  service  corporation  are  valueless.  Such 
officials  make  their  promises,  knowing  that  they  can  be 
fulfilled;  knowing  that  the  State  or  community  affected 
will  profit  by  their  fulfilment;  knowing  that  their  com- 
pany will  profit  also.  But  their  non-resident  principals, 
moved  by  whim  or  fancy,  or  themselves  coerced,  repu- 
diate the  promise  of  their  resident  clerks,  and  the  clerks 
are  powerless  to  prevent. 

This  was  very  well  indicated  by  the  increase  of  the 
Western  Pacific  100-hour  deciduous  fruit-train  service 
between  Sacramento  and  Chicago  from  100  to  140  hours. 

California  representatives  of  the  Western  Pacific 
stated  when  that  road  was  building,  that  the  time  of 
deciduous  fruit  shipments  from  Sacramento  to  Chicago 
should  be  reduced  to  100  hours. 

The  enormous  importance  of  this  to  California  can- 
not be  over-estimated.  Such  a  service  would  be  worth 
millions  to  the  State.  Incidentally,  the  railroads  would 
profit  also. 

When  the  Western  Pacific  was  completed  the  100- 
hour,  Sacramento-Chicago  service  was  actually  given, 
showing  that  such  service  is  possible.  But  almost  imme- 
diately it  was  discontinued. 

At  a  recent  hearing  before  the  State  Railroad  Com- 


I2O  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

mission  107  testimony  108  was  brought  out  which  indicates 
very  clearly  why  it  was  discontinued. 

Eastern  representatives  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Com- 
pany brought  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  Western  Pacific 
to  have  it  stopped.  In  California,  Southern  Pacific 
officials  protested  against  it.  The  100-hour  service  was 
not  continued. 

Thus,  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  not  only  fails 
to  furnish  the  fast  fruit-train  service  which  that  cor- 
poration's officials  admit  it  could  if  it  would,  but  exerts 

107  Before  the  Railroad  Commission  of  the  State  of  California, 
Application  409  "In  the  matter  of  the  application  of  Central  Pacific 
Railway  Company,  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company  and  South- 
ern Pacific  Company  for  authorization  to  make  a  lease  of  a  cer- 
tain railroad,  to  make  a  sale  of  a  certain  railroad,  to  make  a  con- 
tract for  the  joint  use  and  possession  of  a  certain  railroad,  to 
make  a  contract  for  running  or  trackage  rights  over  a  certain 
railroad,  and  to  make  a  contract  for  the  joint  use  of  certain  rail- 
road terminals." 

los  The  testimony  of  Charles  H.  Schlacks.  Mr.  Schlacks  tes- 
tified as  follows: 

Q.  Has  your  company  ever  attempted  to  better  its  service 
with  a  view  to  competition — I  refer  particularly  to  the  fast  fruit 
train.  Was  there  an  occasion  when  your  corporation  ran  a  train 
at  a  speed  that  gave  a  shorter  number  of  hours  between  Cali- 
fornia points  and  the  Missouri  River? 

A.  At  the  commencement  of  our  operation  in  1910,  and  in  July 
of  that  year,  we  entered  into  the  deciduous  fruit  traffic  and  I 
think  moved  the  first  train  in  something  like  100  hours  to  Chicago 
from  Sacramento. 

Q.  Was  any  pressure  subsequently  brought  to  bear  upon  your 
corporation  to  have  it  cease  the  service  that  it  was  rendering 
with  regard  to  the  transcontinental  shipments  of  fruit? 

A.  There  were  protests  made  against  the  fast  time  inaugurated 
by  the  Western  Pacific. 

Q.  It  already  appears  here  that  Messrs.  Kuhn,  Loeb  &  Co. 
are  the  bankers,  so-called,  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company. 
State  whether  or  not  any  such  protest  came  from  Messrs.  Kuhn, 
Loeb  &  Co. 

A.  The  protest  from  the  bankers  of  the  Southern  and  Union 
Pacific  was  made  to  our  president  in  New  York. 

Q.     Did   any  protest  come  from  the   Southern   Pacific? 

A.     I  think   there  were  two  officers  that  protested  here. 

Q.     What  officers? 

A.  I  think  the  then  assistant  general  manager  and  the  vice- 
president  in  charge  of  traffic. 

COMMISSIONER  BSHELMAN:  What  was  the  outcome  of  this, 
what  was  the  result,  did  you  take  off  your  100-hour  train? 

A.  Well,  our  service,  as  far  as  the  Western  Pacific  is  con- 
cerned, remained  about  the  same,  but  that  of  our  connections 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  121 

itself  to  prevent  the  Western  Pacific  running  fast 
trains.  The  California-residing  vice-president,  general 
counsels,  and  other  betitled  clerks  of  the  Western  Pa- 
cific, who  may  have  announced  this  service,  are  power- 
less to  make  good  their  announcements. 

And  here  is  shown  the  difference  between  the  in- 
dependent clerk  of  grocery  store  or  butchershop,  and 
the  more  subservient  clerk  of  public  service  corpora- 
tion. The  average  grocery  clerk  or  butchershop  clerk, 
placed  in  a  position  by  his  employer  where  he  must 
repudiate  an  agreement,  would  resign  his  employment 
and  seek  a  more  congenial  place.  But  not  so  the 
average  clerk  of  the  public  service  corporation.  The 
blind  subserviency — it  is  not  to  be  dignified  by  the  term 
loyalty — of  a  rapidly  increasing  class  to  their  corpora- 
tions is  one  of  the  remarkable  features  of  recent  in- 
dustrial development.  This  subserviency  takes  the  place 
of  patriotism  in  the  good  citizen,  and  honor  in  the  man 

later  on  lengthened  out  to  approximately  seven  days — 140  hours,  I 
should  say. 

On  cross-examination  Schlacks  testified  that  the  protests  were 
not  so  much  against  the  100-hour  train  as  they  were  against  the 
general  fast  time  the  Western  Pacific  was  making.  He  stated 
that  E.  O.  McCormick,  vice-president  of  the  Southern  Pacific,  had 
stated  to  him  that  if  the  Western  Pacific  continued  the  service, 
the  Southern  Pacific  would  put  on  a  schedule  at  the  same  rate 
per  mile.  Inasmuch  as  the  Southern  Pacific's  lines  are  shorter 
than  those  of  the  Western  Pacific,  this  would  have  given  even 
faster  service  than  the  Western  Pacific  was  giving.  Schlacks 
testified  he  had  told  McCormick  he  (McCormick)  was  at  perfect 
liberty  to  put  on  whatever  service  he  pleased. 

The  next  questions   and  answers  were  as  follows: 

Q.     That  didn't   trouble   you — that   protest. 

A.     Didn't  trouble   me   at  all. 

Q.     So   it   needn't  be   mentioned. 

COMMISSIONER  ESHELMAN:  Assuming,  of  course,  that  only 
the  two  railroads  involved  were  affected,  it  is  useless  to  mention 
it,  but  knowing  the  public  might  have  a  small  interest  in  getting 
things  for  their  uses,  it  might  be  worth  mentioning. 

Schlacks  testified  further  on  cross-examination  that  the  West- 
ern Pacific  was  running  its  fruit  trains  to  suit  itself,  making 
practically  the  same  time  to  Salt  Lake,  but  that  nevertheless  the 
time  to  Chicago  had  been  increased  to  approximately  140  hours. 


122  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

of  integrity.  It  twists  their  whole  viewpoint.  Men 
who  would  not  in  their  own  interest,  or  in  the  interest 
of  a  private  employer,  misrepresent,  corrupt  or  bribe, 
will,  for  their  corporations,  stop  at  none  of  these. 
There  is  not,  for  example,  in  California  any  public 
service  corporation  official  who  stands  higher  in  the 
esteem  of  the  general  public,  and  of  those  immediately 
associated  with  him,  than  did  Tirey  L.  Ford  before  the 
revelations  of  the  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution.  That 
Tirey  L.  Ford  would  have  become  involved  in  his 
irregular  transactions  with  Abe  Ruef  for  the  advantage 
of  Tirey  L.  Ford,  no  man  who  knew  him  in  the  days 
before  the  San  Francisco  fire  will  believe.  Some  public 
service  corporation  officials  would  unquestionably  have 
resigned  before  becoming  involved  as  was  Ford.  But 
there  is  to-day  no  public  service  official  in  California 
who,  under  similar  conditions,  would  be  deemed  more 
likely  to  resign  than  was  Ford  up  to  the  time  of  the 
exposure. 

Of  such  was  the  backbone  of  the  lobby  which 
assembled  at  Sacramento,  after  the  legislative  recess, 
to  resist  the  policies  of  the  progressive  administration. 

There  were,  of  course,  lobbyists  who  were  there  to 
oppose  measures  which  had  to  do  with  matters  in  which 
the  great  corporations  were  not  immediately  interested, 
such  as  "Blue  Sky"  legislation  to  safeguard  the  public 
against  exploiting  promoters;  measures  which  rendered 
unsafe  investments  in  saloons,  gambling  establish- 
ments, brothels  and  the  like.  But  the  effective  opposi- 
tion to  progressive  measures  came  in  the  main  from 
lobbyists  who  were  carrying  out  policies,  in  the  fixing 
of  which  Californians  had  had  little  or  no  voice. 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  123 

And  in  carrying  out  these  policies  their  purpose  was 
not  only  to  defeat  progressive  measures,  but  to  discredit, 
so  far  as  possible,  the  Progressive  movement. 

For  the  most  part,  the  lobby  was  made  up  of  men 
who  had  not  been  identified  with  politics  during  the 
days  of  the  "machine."  Their  methods,  too,  differed 
from  those  of  the  "machine"  lobbyists  of  the  old  days. 
The  lobbyist  could  no  longer  go  into  Senate  or  Assem- 
bly Chamber,  tap  a  member  on  the  shoulder  and  instruct 
him  how  to  vote.  The  lobbyist  of  the  1913  session  was 
a  very  different  type  from  the  lobbyist  of  the  session  of 
1907. 

They  came  to  Sacramento  thoroughly  informed  in  the 
subjects  in  which  their  principals  were  interested.  They 
had  the  advantage  of  the  findings  and  counsel  of  the 
best  experts  that  could  be  employed.  In  almost  every 
case  they  were  better  informed  on  the  subject  for  which 
they  appeared  than  the  legislators.  They  tactfully 
adopted  the  mood  of  the  times.  They  were  "progressive." 
They  had  come  to  Sacramento  to  advise  with  the  legis- 
lators. They  were  prepared — and  quite  willing — to 
assist  the  legislators.  They  seldom  seemed  to  intrude.109 
Nevertheless,  the  legislator  from  morning  until  night 
had  the  lobbyists'  claims  dinned  into  his  ears. 

Another  thing  for  the  Californian  to  consider  is  that 
the  lobbyists  were  much  better  paid  than  the  legislators. 
But  here  again  The  Public  paid.  The  wage  of  the 
lobbyists  would  eventually  be  charged  up  somewhere  as 

109  The  lobbyist  who  haunts  members  at  their  desks,  makes 
himself  a  general  nuisance,  and  perhaps  gets  himself  excluded 
from  the  floor,  isn't  the  type  of  lobbyist  whom  the  public  need 
fear.  The  effective  lobbyist  who  blocks  legislation  adopts  very 
different  tactics. 


124  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

operating  expenses,  and  collected  from  The   Public  in 
the  form  of  rates. 

The  lobby  had  two  principal  sources  of  effective 
support : 

( 1 )  In  Reactionary  members,  both  Democratic  and 
Republican,  of  Senate  and  Assembly. 

(2)  In  reactionary  newspapers.110 

The  Reactionary  members  were  in  hopeless  minority 
in  both  Houses.  They  could  defeat  no  measure  if  it 
came  to  a  vote;  they  could  not  in  any  event  pass  a  bill 
which  the  Progressives  might  oppose.  But  they  could, 
by  delaying  tactics,  prevent  action  on  Progressive 
measures.  And  this,  week  after  week,  they  succeeded 
in  doing.  So  long  as  a  measure  could  be  kept  from 
passage,  there  was  no  certainty  that  it  would  be  passed. 
In  the  meantime  a  situation  might  be  created  by  which 
adjournment  could  be  forced  without  the  measure  being 
passed  at  all. 

no  There  is  at  least  reason  to  believe  that  some  publications 
at  least,  are  regularly  employed  for  this  sort  of  work.  Mark  L. 
Gerstle,  of  the  law  firm  of  Thomas,  Gerstle  &  Frick,  who  acted 
as  attorneys  for  the  Home  Telephone  Company,  for  example,  tes- 
tified before  the  Grand  Jury  which  brought  the  indictments  in 
the  San  Francisco  graft  cases,  that  the  company  paid  the  San 
Francisco  Chronicle  $10,000  to  assist  in  educating  the  people  to 
the  idea  of  a  competing  telephone  system.  The  testimony  was 
as  follows: 

"Q.  During  that  time  in  1905,  were  any  newspapers  paid  to 
help  the  good  cause?  A.  Yes. 

"Q.     What  papers?     A.     Only  one. 

"Q.    What  paper  was  that?     A.     Chronicle. 

"Q.     How  much   was  paid  to   it?     A.     $10,000. 

"Q.  What  were  the  terms  of  that  employment?  A.  The  ob- 
ject of  paying  that  money  was  to  educate  the  people  to  the  idea 
of  a  competitive  telephone  system.  There  seemed  to  be  a  preju- 
dice among  everybody,  or  a  great  many  people,  as  to  the  value  or 
necessity  of  another  telephone  system,  and  we  could  not  obtain 
the  assistance  of  any  newspaper  in  that  work  without  paying  for 
it.  Some  required  it  in  the  share  of  advertising  which  we  did  not 
need — don't  do  any  good — others  wouldn't  take  it  in  that  way;  the 
Chronicle  wouldn't  take  it  that  way  and  we  were  forced  in  order 
to  have  some  newspaper  assist  us  in  that  work,  to  pay  the  price, 
which  was  $10,000." 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  125 

A  movement,  for  example,  gained  considerable  head- 
way early  in  the  second  part  of  the  session  to  fix  the 
day  of  adjournment.  Even  Progressive  leaders  thought 
such  a  move  would  be  well.  But  clearer-headed  mem- 
bers of  the  type  of  Kehoe  of  Humboldt  pointed  out  that 
with  a  day  of  adjournment  definitely  fixed,  passage  of 
Progressive  measures  might  be  delayed  until  the  hour  of 
adjournment  came,  without  action  having  been  taken. 
Better,  it  was  -contended,  complete  the  work  of  the 
session  before  committing  the  Legislature  to  adjourn- 
ment. This  counsel  finally  prevailed.  Had  the  original 
plan  to  fix  adjournment  for  April  26  been  adopted,  but 
little  would  have  been  accomplished  by  the  1913  Legis- 
lature. On  that  date,  not  one  of  the  more  important 
of  the  so-called  Progressive  measures  had  been  sent  to 
the  Governor  for  his  approval. 

Perplexed  legislators  could  not  place  the  blame  for 
the  delays,  nor  understand  their  own  lack  of  accom- 
plishment. But  explanation  was  readily  found.  The 
special  interests  which  for  thirty  years  had  owned  the 
Legislature  had  adapted  themselves  to  changed  condi- 
tions, and  through  a  powerful  lobby,  were  employing 
every  available  resource — the  self-interest  of  citizens  or 
groups  of  citizens,  the  jealousies  of  various  sections 
and  communities,  the  fears  of  the  timid  and  the  cre- 
dulity of  the  self-seeking— to  prevent  the  carrying  out 
of  Progressive  policies. 

Newspapers  which  gave  support  to  the  lobby  devoted 
themselves  to  the  work  of  discrediting  the  Legislature 
with  the  general  public.  The  cry  was  raised  that  this 


iz6  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

was  a  "freak"  Legislature ;  that  freak  bills  U1  were  to 
be  passed  which  would  make   California  absurd;   that 


111  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  denounced  as  "freak"  such 
measures  as  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  the  "Blue  Sky" 
bill,  the  measure  providing  for  an  investigation  to  fix  a  minimum 
wage  for  women,  the  bill  to  give  State  aid  to  widows  caring  for 
their  children  at  home,  instead  of  putting  the  children  in  asylums, 
and  giving  the  aid  to  the  asylum  management  The  San  Fran- 
cisco News  Letter  was  particularly  wordy  in  denouncing  the  Red- 
light  Abatement  and  the  Conservation  acts  as  "freaks." 

The  following  editorial  article  from  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle 
of  March  25,  1913,  is  a  fairly  good  example  of  these  attacks: 

"A   LEGISLATURE   OF   PROGRESSIVE    CRANKS. 

"It    Is   Likely  to    Do    Infinitely   More    Mischief   Than    a    Legislature 

of    Rascals   Would    Ever  Attempt. 

"Nobody  is  attacking  the  moral  character  or  good  Intentions 
of  the  majority  of  members  of  the  present  Legislature,  but  an 
honest  Legislature  whose  ability  to  reason  is  destroyed  by  its 
imagination  is  more  dangerous  to  society  than  a  Legislature  of 
felons. 

"For  a  Legislature  of  felons  would  never  dare  attempt  evil 
things  which  a  Legislature  of  cranks  would  enact  in  the  firm 
conviction  that  it  was  pleasing  humanity. 

"It  has  been  the  custom  to  confine  those  who  have  lost  their 
reason  in  some  quiet  asylum  where  kindly  treatment  and  soothing 
medicaments  may  gradually  restore  them  to  sanity.  Our  experi- 
ment of  choosing  a  select  number  of  them  to  make  our  laws 
seems  likely  to  result  in  disaster. 

"These  men  are  obsessed  with  the  desire  and  the  determination 
to  regulate  the  business  of  other  people  to  the  minutest  detail. 

"They  are  utterly  reckless  of  money  and  the  ability  of  the 
people  to  pay,  and  it  is  stated  tnat  the  aggregate  of  the  amounts 
asked  for  by  the  bills  introduced  Is  around  fifty-nine  millions  of 
dollars. 

"And  that  does  not  include  constitutional  amendments,  among 
which  is  one  authorizing  the  Legislature  to  incur  a  debt  of  $50,- 
000,000  to  purchase  the  bonds  of  political  subdivisions  which  can- 
not establish  their  credit  in  the  market. 

"There  is  no  end  to  the  costly  commissions  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  create  with  unlimited  power  to  provide  jobs  for  in- 
numerable people  for  all  sorts  of  purposes. 

"It  is  proposed  to  pension  mothers  and  stepmothers  whether 
they  need  It  or  not,  and  whether  they  are  fit  to  be  entrusted  with 
pension  money  or  not. 

"There  is  an  old  age  pension  scheme  which  would  beat  even 
our  glorious  climate  as  an  attraction  to  the  beggars  of  the  world. 

"There  is  a  minimum  wage  bill  whose  effect  would  be  to  send 
the  least  competent  women  to  the  streets  and  to  supplant  women 
by  men. 

"There  is  a  minimum  hour  bill  which  assumes  women  to  be 
incompetent  to  judge  for  themselves  how  long  they  wish  to  work, 
would  deprive  them  of  the  opportunity  to  earn  good  wages  during 
the  fruit  season  and  make  it  impossible  to  harvest  and  care  for 
our  perishable  fruits. 

"There  are  bills  for  regulating  investments  by  those  who  know 
nothing  about  the  investment  business,  which  would  make  any 
investment  difficult  and  costly  and  make  it  virtually  impossible 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  127 

would  drive  capital  from  the  State;  that  would  wreck 
industry. 

"Freak"  bills  had,  of  course,  been  introduced,  just 
as  they  had  been  at  all  previous  sessions,112  just  as  they 
will  be  in  all  probability  at  all  sessions  to  come.  Many 
of  the  so-called  "freak"  bills  of  the  1913  session  had 


to  explore  our  mining  possibilities  at  the  cost  of  those  who  are 
willing  to  take  risk  on  the  chance  of  profit. 

"Without  investigation  and  with  absolutely  no  data  upon  which 
to  base  estimates,  it  is  proposed  to  enact  a  most  drastic  work- 
man's compensation  law,  which  may  not  seriously  embarrass  the 
great  corporations,  but  will  expose  farmers  and  other  small  em- 
ployers to  the  danger  of  absolute  ruin. 

"The  number  of  tomfool  bills  is  beyond  computation.  It  is 
proposed  to  regulate  the  dress  of  school  children;  to  forbid  the 
sale  of  ice  cream  on  Sundays;  to  'recall'  judiciary  decisions;  to 
pay  everybody's  political  campaign  expenses;  to  fine  citizens  who 
fail  to  vote;  to  hire  an  'expert'  to  draw  a  pure  paint  law;  to 
promote  education  In  'social  science'  over  the  head  of  the  Uni- 
versity; to  create  a  high  salaried  'welfare  commission';  to  'in- 
vestigate wages';  to  remove  property  qualifications  for  "jurors'; 
'to  establish  Industrial  courts';  'to  subject  appointive  officials  to 
the  recall';  'to  regulate  the  newspapers' — and  about  everybody 
and  everything  else. 

"Nearly  all  these  propositions  involve  a  high-salaried  commis- 
sion, with  indefinite  power  to  give  out  jobs. 

"It  is  proposed  to  make  ordinary  combinations  of  business  men 
felonious,  while  encouraging  workingmen  to  combine,  and  espe- 
cially granting  the  use  of  the  State  property  to  them  to  enable 
them  to  intimidate  or  coerce  employers  and  employees  who  refuse 
to  be  governed  by  them. 

"It  is  not  possible  to  compress  into  newspaper  space  any 
adequate  description  or  even  enumeration  of  the  legislative  mon- 
strosities which  It  Is  proposed  to  enact  into  law. 

"Conceding  the  good  intent  of  the  weak-minded  legislators  who 
introduce  these  measures  in  many  cases,  those  In  the  background 
who  really  inspire  the  propositions  are  as  greedy,  hateful  and 
unscrupulous  as  the  worst  of  those  whom  they  propose  to  assail." 

112  At  the  1899  session,  for  example,  a  bill  was  introduced  to 
make  the  killing  of  an  editor  justifiable  homicide.  However  de- 
sirable the  taking  off  of  editors  may  be,  the  editor-killing  bill 
didn't  become  a  law. 

But  a  measure  quite  as  "freaky"  did  at  that  1899  session  be- 
come a  law.  This  particular  "freak"  required  every  article  ap- 
pearing In  a  newspaper  be  signed  by  the  man  or  woman  who 
wrote  it.  The  Sacramento  Bee,  by  following  this  law  for  one  day, 
made  the  law  and  the  1899  Legislature  the  butt  of  ridicule  of  the1 
State. 

In  a  single  issue  of  the  Bee,  every  item,  from  editorial  article 
to  personal  mention,  bore  the  signature  of  the  person  who  had 
written  it.  The  whole  State  laughed. 

The  law  was  followed,   and  in  its  following  killed. 

From  the  day  of  the  Bee's  observance  of  that  law  It  became 
a  dead  letter. 


ia8  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

been  introduced  session  after  session 113  and  no  notice 
taken  of  them  until  in  1913  it  served  a  purpose  to 
make  much  of  them.  They  had  not  become  laws  at 
previous  sessions ;  they  did  not  become  laws  in  1913. 
But  the  persistent  cry  of  "freak"  legislation  unques- 
tionably had  its  effect  upon  not  only  the  public,  but 
upon  Progressive  legislators  themselves. 

From  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other  letters 
poured  in  upon  the  members  urging  them  to  avoid 
radical  action.  A  cleverly  conducted  campaign  on  the 
part  of  the  Industrial  Insurance  companies  had  stirred 
up  opposition  in  the  farming  communities  against  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  act;  irrigationists  uninformed 
of  its  real,  provisions,  had  been  turned  against  the 
Water  Conservation  bill.  In  fact,  there  was  scarcely 
an  important  progressive  measure  before  the  Legisla- 
ture against  which  opposition  had  not  been  created. 
Members  were  showered  with  letters  urging  them  to 
have  care  lest  they  bring  disaster  upon  the  State.  More 


us  In  an  address  at  the  Progressive  banquet  given  at  San 
Francisco  April  12,  1913,  to  Winston  Churchill,  Governor  Johnson 
touched  upon  the  matter  of  "freak"  legislation. 

"Don't  be  troubled."  he  said,  "when  a  newspaper  raises  the 
cry  of  'freak  legislation,'  or  'crank  legislation.'  Don't  worry 
when  trust  organs  like  the  Chronicle,  the  Post  and  the  Los  An- 
geles Times,  or  other  papers  of  that  sort,  may  indulge  in  ridicule 
in  the  hope  of  accomplishing  the  downfall  or  in  hope  of  ridding 
the  State  of  a  Legislature  which  has  undertaken  the  solution  of 
serious  problems  of  society  as  seriously  and  well  as  any  Legis- 
lature which  ever  sat  in  any  State  in  the  United  States. 

"There  are  some  people  who  understand  thought-waves — who 
realize  exactly  when  the  psychological  moment  has  come,  to  im- 
press people  with  the  thing  which  they  desire.  You  will  find  at  a 
time  like  this  that  those  who  would  destroy  the  whole  fabric  are 
those  who  would  distill  into  you  doubt  as  to  some  small,  infinitesi- 
mal matter. 

"Do  you,  when  the  cry  of  'freak  legislation'  is  raised,  ask  them 
what  legislation  has  ever  been  enacted  into  law  by  this  Legis- 
lature that  any  man  or  woman  would  dare  to  call  'freak'  legisla- 
tion?' Ask  them  what  bills  have  been  signed,  what  single  bill 
has  become  law,  which  is  'freak  legislation.'  " 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  129 

persistent  letters  advised  that  the  Legislature  adjourn; 
letters  still  more  persistent  threatened  recall. 

And  this  alarm,  this  opposition  to  the  passage  of 
good  measures,  had  its  origin  in  cleverly  conducted 
publicity  campaigns,  and  the  hammering  opposition  of 
the  reactionary  press.  With  misinformed  constituents 
urging  that  good  measures  be  defeated,  while  a  clamor- 
ing lobby  on  the  ground  manipulated  to  the  same  end, 
proponents  of  progressive  measures  saw  themselves  los- 
ing ground  constantly. 

To  be  sure  publications  in  sympathy  with  the  Pro- 
gressive movement,  such  as  the  Sacramento  Bee,114 
Stockton  Record,  Oakland  Enquirer,  San  Francisco  Bul- 
letin, Fresno  Republican,  Los  Angeles  Express  and  Los 


114  In  commenting  upon  the  sneers  and  ridicule  of  reactionary 
critics  Charles  K.  McClatchy,  writing  in  the  Sacramento  Bee  of 
April  5,  1913,  said: 

"But,    thank    God,    the   general    citizenry   are   not   blind. 

"They  can  penetrate  beyond  the  exceptions  and  see  the  general 
rule. 

"They  can  lose  sight  of  the  minimum  errors  and  faults  and 
sins  in  contemplation  of  the  maximum  good  that  has  been  and 
that  will  be  accomplished. 

"And  when  they  are  twitted  with  the  unfortunate  idiocies  of 
undigested  legislation — with  the  quarrels  of  those  who  forget  the 
general  good  in  the  furtherance  of  their  own  petty  selfishness — 
with  the  expose  of  certain  unfaithful  who  have  tried  to  transform 
the  road  to  Armageddon  into  an  avenue  devoted  to  political 
prostitution — they  can  truthfully  say: 

"Yes,  we  admit  all  that.  But  the  difference  between  the  past 
and  the  present  is  this — that  what  was  then  the  rule  is  now  the 
exception. 

"You  ridicule  the  Progressives  of  California  for  not  at  one  fell 
swoop  cleansing  the  State  of  all  your  sins.  You  jibe  at  zealous 
workers  because  here  and  there  a  bogus  worker  does  what  all 
you  Reactionaries  were  constantly  doing — what  your  State  admin- 
istration ever  were  upholding. 

"You  are  shocked,  not  because  some  such  men  have  been  found 
with  us,  but  rather  because  they  are  not  with  us  in  such  num- 
bers as  to  control  the  State  Government  and  force  it  back  into 
the  clutches  of  the  public  service  corporations  and  the  syndicates 
of  Sin. 

"In  fact,  you  are  indignant  for  no  other  reason  than  that  the 
elements  from  which  the  Progressives  rescued  California  are  still 
so  woefully  and  helplessly  in  the  minority  in  the  operation  of  its 
State  Government." 


130  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

Angeles  Tribune,  showed  the  insincerity  and  injustice 
of  these  attacks.  Citizens  of  the  type  of  former  Gov- 
ernor George  C.  Pardee  and  Francis  J.  Heney  remained 
for  weeks  at  Sacramento  urging  the  passage  of  Pro-, 
gressive  measures,  or  the  defeat  of  measures  which  they 
deemed  to  be  bad.  Through  the  efforts  of  Pardee  and 
Heney,  for  example,  the  Conservation  bill  was  passed.115 
Miss  Helen  Todd  and  Miss  Alice  Kathrine  Fellows,  by 
staying  at  Sacramento,  succeeded  in  forcing  out  of 
committee  the  Home  Rule  in  Taxation  constitutional 
amendment,  and  finally  securing  its  adoption,  after  the 
authors  of  the  measure  had  given  it  up  as  hopelessly 
lost.  Mrs.  James  Ellis  Tucker  and  Miss  Helen  Farn- 
ham  remained  at  Sacramento  for  weeks  to  oppose  the 
Boynton  bills,  the  passage  of  which  would  have  meant 
the  removal  of  the  pioneer  dead  from  San  Francisco 
cemeteries.116  Here  and  there  were  others,  staying  at 

us  See  Chapter  IX. 

lie  The  Boynton  Cemetery  bills  had  behind  them  strong  mem- 
bers of  both  Houses.  Mrs.  Tucker  and  Miss  Farnham  devoted 
their  entire  time  to  opposition  to  their  passage.  They  finally 
succeeded,  after  the  bills  had  passed  the  Senate. 

The  vote  in  Senate  and  Assembly  on  the  first  bill  of  the  series 
(Senate  Bill  323)  was,  in  the  Senate  as  follows: 

For  the  Bill — Senators  Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Boyn- 
ton, Breed,  Brown,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cartwright,  Cogswell,  Cohn, 
Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  Rush,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 24. 

Against  the  Bill — Senators  Beban,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Finn, 
Grant,  Jones.  Juilliard,  Regan,  Sanford  and  Shanahan — 10. 

The  measure  was  originally  defeated  in  the  Assembly  by  the 
following  vote: 

For  the  Bill — Assemblymen  Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman,  Bush, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  A.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.; 
Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Guiberson,  Hinkle, 
Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston.  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A. :  Jud- 
son.  Killingsworth,  Kuck,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nolan,  Richard- 
son, Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Sutherland,  Wall,  Walsh,  and 
White— 37. 

Against  the  Bill — Assemblymen  Alexander,  Ambrose,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bradford,  Brown,  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Far- 
well,  Ferguson  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Ford,  Green,  Griffin, 
Guill,  Hayes,  Kingsley,  Libby,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Moorhouse, 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  131 

Sacramento  at  their  own  expense,  to  promote  the  pas- 
sage of  measures,  the  passage  of  which  they  deemed 
necessary  for  the  best  interests  of  the  State,  or  opposing 
measures  which  they  considered  bad.  Barclay  McCowan 
of  Bakersfield  remained  at  Sacramento  at  his  own  ex- 
pense, from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  session, 
working  for  the  passage  of  measures  for  the  benefit  of 
his  home  county,  Kern.  These  measures,  because  of 
McCowan's  efforts,  became  laws. 

But  the  continued  efforts  of  paid  lobby,  reactionary 
newspapers,  and  misinformed  or  self-interested  con- 
stituents were  having  their  effect  nevertheless.  The 
Legislature  continued  in  session  week  after  week,  with 
the  important  measures  apparently  no  nearer  passage 
than  when  the  session  opened.  Several  good  measures, 
such  as  the  Insurance  Supervision  bill,  were  defeated. 
And  finally,  when  adjournment  could  not  much  longer 
be  delayed,  the  Legislature  found  itself  with  hundreds 
of  bills  upon  its  hands  to  which  committees  had  de- 
voted months  of  labor,  but  upon  which  neither  House 


Nelson,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Shartel,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith, 
Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch,  Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie 
and  Young — 41. 

Bohnett,  who  had  changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no  to  give 
notice  that  he  would  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
measure  had  been  defeated,  on  the  following  day  secured  recon- 
sideration. But  the  bill  was  defeated  for  the  second  time,  the 
vote  being: 

For  the  Bill — Assemblymen  Bagby,  Beck,  Bohnett,  Bowman, 
Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clarke,  Geo.  A. ;  Gabbert, 
Gat^s,  Gelder,  Guiberson,  Hinkle,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. :  John- 
ston, T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Morgen- 
stern,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Richardson,  Ryan.  Schmitt, 
Scott,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Sutherland,  Wall,  Walsh  and  White — 36. 

Against  the  Bill — Assemblymen  Alexander,  Ambrose,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bradford,  Brown,  Collins,  Cram,  Ellis,  Harwell,  Fergu- 
son, Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Green,  Guill,  Hayes,  Kingsley, 
Libby.  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Polsley, 
Roberts,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch, 
Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  Young — 37. 


132  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

had  taken  action.  Both  Houses  were  obliged  to  decide 
for  or  against  those  bills  as  fast  as  rolls  could  be 
called,  or  adjourn  with  the  session's  work  unfinished. 

The  first  course  was  followed.  Hundreds  of  bills 
were  rushed  through,  the  constitutional  requirements 
for  their  passage  being  barely  observed.  In  the  Senate, 
for  example,  on  the  afternoon  of  May  6,  seventy-one 
bills  were  passed  in  seventy  minutes.117  Records  as 
suggestive  of  the  breaking  down  of  the  "checks  and 
balances"  of  a  two-house  Legislature  were  made  in  the 
Assembly.  The  attaches  in  both  houses  were,  during 

117  A  number  of  the  measures  contained  urgency  clauses,  which 
necessitated  two  roll-calls  for  their  passage.  To  pass  those  sev- 
enty-one bills  105  roll-calls  were  required. 

Seventy-one  bills  in  seventy  minutes,  is  a  trifle  more  than  a 
bill  a  minute.  One  hundred  and  five  roll-calls  in  seventy  minutes 
is  a  roll-call  every  40  seconds  or  every  two-thirds  of  a  minute. 

The  Senate  consists  of  forty  members.  The  name  of  each 
Senator  must  be  called  on  each  roll-call.  One  hundred  and  five 
roll-calls,  therefore,  necessitated  the  pronunciation  of  4,200  names 
— all  in  one  hour  and  ten  minutes. 

In  one  hour  and  ten  minutes  there  are  4,200  seconds.  In  every 
one  of  those  4,200  seconds  a  name  had  to  be  called  to  -complete 
the  105  roll-calls.  To  appreciate  what  this  means  the  reader 
might  set  himself  to  calling  sixty  names  in  sixty  seconds,  and 
speculate  on  what  it  means  to  keep  up  the  rate  for  4,200  seconds. 

But  in  those  seventy  minutes  of  105  roll-calls  and  the  passage 
of  seventy-one  bills  more  was  required  than  the  calling  of  rolls. 
Each  bill,  under  the  Constitutional  requirement,  had  to  be  "read." 

This  wise  provision  of  the  Constitution  is  intended  to  prevent 
unseemly  haste  or  the  part  of  the  Legislature  when  engaged  in 
enacting  laws. 

The  4,200  names  had  to  be  called,  because  the  journal  must 
show  how  each  Senator  voted. 

The  matter  of  the  "reading"  is  merely  recorded  in  the  journal 
by  the  more  or  less  truthful  statement  that  the  bill  was  "read 
the  third  time." 

The  reading  of  seventy-one  billf  In  seventy  minutes,  especially 
when  the  name  of  a  Senator  had  to  be  pronounced  every  second 
during  those  seventy  minutes,  is  a  task  in  itself. 

But  another  formality  is  required.  After  the  passage  of  each 
bill  its  title  must  be  read  and  approved. 

The  reading  of  the  titles  of  seventy-one  bills  in  seventy  min- 
utes will  tax  the  average  man.  But  when  in  addition  a  bill  must 
be  "read"  every  minute  during  the  time  in  which  the  titles  are 
read,  while  in  addition  the  name  of  a  Senator  must  be  pronounced 
for  every  second  of  that  time,  the  reader  can  form  some  idea  of 
the  feat  accomplished  by  the  1913  Senate  in  its  record-breaking 
accomplishment  of  May  6,  when  that  deliberative  body  passed 
seventy-one  bills  in  seventy  minutes. 


The  Lobby  and  Its  Work  133 

the  last  days  of  the  session,  held  at  their  desks  for 
fifty,  sixty  and  even  seventy  hours  at  a  time.  Secretary 
Walter  Parrish  of  the  Senate  kept  at  his  work  for 
seventy-eight  consecutive  hours,  taking  time  only  for 
light  lunches  and  cups  of  coffee  which  he  had  assistants 
bring  to  his  desk.  It  was  only  by  such  constant  appli- 
cation during  the  last  hours  of  the  session  that  bills 
could  be  kept  going  through  their  proper  channels. 

Chief  Clerk  Mallory  of  the  Assembly  had  much  the 
same  experience  as  Secretary  Parrish.  The  clerks  under 
Parrish  and  Mallory  were  subjected  to  the  same  gruel- 
ing grind.  In  the  important  Enrolling  and  Engrossing 
Committees,  where  bills  are  finally  read  and  compared 
to  detect  errors,  clerks  were  found  asleep  at  their  desks. 
On  the  last  legislative  day  J.  O.  Hestwood,  Enrolling 
and  Engrossing  Clerk  of  the  Assembly,  reported  upon 
377  bills.  Not  only  did  the  measures  have  to  be  read 
and  compared  by  Hestwood  or  his  assistants,  but  the, 
signatures  of  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  the  Clerk  of  the  Assembly,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Private  Secretary  to 
the  Governor  had  to  be  secured  to  six  copies  of  each 
bill,  before  Hestwood  could  file  his  final  report  with 
the  Assembly.  On  the  Senate  side  Frank  J.  Walter, 
Enrolling  and  Engrossing  Clerk  of  that  body,  had  prac- 
tically the  same  work  to  do.  But  Hestwood's  task 
shows  the  situation.  Before  either  House  could  adjourn 
its  Enrolling  and  Engrossing  Clerk  had  to  make  his 
final  report,  which  he  could  not  make  until  his  work 
was  done. 

The  six   copies   each  of  the  377  bills   which   Hest- 


134  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

wood  handled  on  that  last  legislative  day,  made  2262 
copies.  Five  signatures  on  each  of  the  2262  copies 
meant  11,310  signatures  from  men  harassed  to  the 
breaking  point  with  multitudinous  duties  of  their  own. 
Speaker  and  President  were  presiding  over  bodies  of 
worn-out,  nerve-wracked  men;  Clerk  and  Secretary 
were  held  to  their  desk  with  their  regular  routine. 
The  Secretary  to  the  Governor  was  as  occupied.  And 
yet,  the  Assembly  Enrolling  and  Engrossing  Clerk  had 
to  force,  in  one  way  or  another,  2262  signatures  from 
each  of  these  men.  The  Senate  Clerk,  it  must  be 
remembered,  had  practically  the  same  demand  upon 
them. 

But  before  the  bills  could  be  signed  by  these  offi- 
cials, six  copies  of  them,  after  their  passage,  had  to  be 
printed.  In  those  last  hours,  literally  hundreds  of 
bills  were  sent  to  the  printer  for  reprinting.  In  the 
printing  office  the  grind  of  the  Enrolling  and  Engross- 
ing room  was  repeated. 

As  for  the  members  of  Senate  and  Assembly,  the 
amount  of  work  completed  by  individual  members  dur- 
ing the  last  days  of  the  session  was  almost  unbelievable. 
The  day's  work  of  Assemblyman  W.  F.  Chandler  of 
Fresno  was  typical,  and  shows  that  of  many  other 
members. 

Chandler  was  chairman  of  the  important  Ways  and 
Means  Committee.  But  Chandler  was  also  a  member 
of  the  Special  Committee  named  to  investigate  the 
affairs  of  the  Secretary  of  State's  office. 

The  investigating  committee  began  its  labors  every 
afternoon  at  4  o'clock.  At  6,  an  hour  was  taken  for 


135 

supper.  The  Committee  reconvened  at  about  7,  and  con- 
tinued in  session  until  after  10  o'clock;  sometimes  until 
after  midnight.  The  Assembly  was  in  session  from 
9 :30  a.  m.  until  4  p.  m.  Chandler  was  expected  to  keep 
in  touch  with  the  Assembly  work. 

When  did  he  get  time  for  his  duties  as  Chairman  of 
the  important  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  ? 

He  had  his  breakfast  at  6:30  a.  m.  He  was  at  his 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  work  before  8.  The 
Committee  did  what  it  could  before  the  Assembly  con- 
vened. After  the  Assembly  was  in  session,  the  Commit- 
tee limped  along  as  best  it  could  for  an  hour  or  so.  In 
addition  to  Ways  and  Means  Committee  work,  and  Sec- 
retary of  State  Investigating  Committee  work,  Chandler 
had  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  provisions  of  a  dozen 
big  measures — "Blue  Sky,"  "Conservation,"  "Work- 
men's Compensation,"  and  what  not. 

And  Chandler's  case  was  but  example  of  the  position 
in  which  every  Progressive  member  of  this  Legislature 
found  himself. 

But  the  lobby  found  no  such  demand  upon  it.  To 
begin  with,  the  lobby  was  absolutely  irresponsible.  All 
that  it  had  to  do  was  to  work  confusion.  That  did 
not  take  much  time.  An  anarchist,  by  the  trifling 
exertion  of  touching  the  lighted  end  of  his  cigar  to  a 
fuse,  can  wreck  the  results  of  the  labor  of  years. 

The  lobbyist,  by  inveigling  a  legislator  to  insert  a 
two-line  amendment  into  a  measure,  could  defeat  the 
conscientious  effort  of  weeks  of  committee  work. 

So,  in  the  contest  of  lobby  vs.  Legislature,  the  lobby 
had  all  the  better  of  it. 


136  The  Lobby  and  Its  Work 

In  such  a  situation,  the  "trading  of  votes"  by  mem- 
bers anxious  to  get  through  their  measures  came  as  a 
matter  of  course.  The  "trading"  during  the  last  days 
of  the  session  became  notorious,  particularly  in  the 
Assembly.  It  had  important  bearing  upon  many  im- 
portant measures. 

Under  such  conditions,  too,  errors  can  scarcely  be 
avoided.  The  only  wonder  is  that  more  were  not  made. 
Examples  of  errors  could  be  given  in  sad  plenty. 

Such  was  the  confusion  into  which  the  Legislature 
was  forced  by  the  delay-promoting  lobby,  more  or  less; 
assisted  by  a  small  Reactionary  group  in  each  House. 
In  such  a  situation  the  passage  of  bad  bills  was  made 
possible,  the  defeat  of  good  bills  by  trickery  rendered 
comparatively  easy.118 

But  in  spite  of  Reactionary  group  and  kept  lobby, 
Progressive  party  platform  pledges  were  fulfilled;  Pro- 
gressive measures  were  enacted.  To  what  extent  the 
lobby  succeeded  in  rendering  Progressive  measures 
which  were  passed,  ineffective  by  amendment  can  be 
determined  only  after  the  new  laws  have  been  tested  by 
their  operation. 

us  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapter 
XVI,  Page  168,  of  the  methods  pursued  by  the  old  "machine"  to 
pass  undesirable  measures,  which  had  a  majority  against  them. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
THE  CONSERVATION  BiLL.119 

Governor  Johnson,  in  a  single  paragraph  in  his  in- 
augural address  to  the  1911  Legislature,  described  the 
conservation  situation  in  California. 

"In  the  abstract,"  said  the  Governor,  "all  agree 
on  the  policy  of  conservation.  It  is  only  when  we 
deal  with  conservation  in  the  concrete  that  we  find 
opposition  to  the  enforcement  of  the  doctrine  enun- 
ciated originally  by  Gifford  Pinchot  and  Theodore 
Roosevelt.  Conservation  means  development,  but 
development  and  preservation;  and  it  would  seem 
that  no  argument  should  be  required  on  the  ques- 
tion of  preserving,  so  far  as  we  may,  for  all  of 
The  People,  those  things  which  naturally  belong  to 
all.  The  great  natural  wealth  of  water  in  this  State 
has  been  permitted,  under  our  existing  laws  and  lack 
of  system,  to  be  misappropriated  and  to  be  held  to 
the  great  disadvantage  of  its  economical  develop- 
ment. The  present  laws  in  this  respect  should  be 

119  The  Democratic  State  platform  (1912),  with  the  exception 
of  the  conservation  of  flood  waters,  made  no  mention  of  con- 
servation. The  Progressive  (Republican)  platform  made  definite 
pledge.  The  plank  reads: 

"We  favor  such  further  conservation  legislation  as  the  addi- 
tional information  obtained  since  the  last  legislative  session  now 
makes  desirable,  including  laws  for  the  protection  of  our  forests 
against  fire." 

Governor  Johnson  in  a  list  of  what  he  termed  the  ten  most 
important  measures  before  the  1913  Legislature — the  "ten  com- 
mandments," as  they  were  called — placed  the  Conservation  bill 
at  the  head  of  the  list. 


138  The  Conservation  Bill 

amended.  If  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  claims  are 
wrongfully  or  illegally  held,  those  claims  should 
revert  to  the  State.  A  rational  and  equitable  code 
and  method  of  procedure  for  water  conservation 
and  development  should  be  adopted." 

Such  was  the  situation  when  the  1911  Legislature 
opened;  such  was  the  situation  with  which  the  1913 
Legislature  was  called  upon  to  contend. 

So  long  as  the  Legislature  dealt  with  conservation  in 
the  abstract,  there  was  no  opposition.  Gifford  Pinchot 
himself  could  not  have  forced  opposition  on  conserva- 
tion in  the  abstract  from  the  most  hardened  power  com- 
pany lobbyist  at  Sacramento. 

But  when  it  came  to  giving  expression  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  conservation  in  legislative  enactments,  trouble 
began. 

At  issue  in  the  controversy  are  the  enormously 
valuable  water  resources  of  the  State.  The  value  of  this 
water  for  irrigation  is  practically  beyond  estimate.  In 
addition  to  its  value  for  irrigation  purposes,  is  the 
worth  of  5,000,000  horse-power  of  electrical  energy 
capable  of  being  generated  by  the  falling  waters  of  the 
streams.  And  part  of  this  water  is — and  all  of  it  once 
was — the  property  of  all  The  People. 

The  exploiter  would  have  the  control  of  this  water 
fall  into  private  hands — as  much  of  it  has — that  toll 
may  be  exacted  of  him  who  uses  it  for  irrigation,  as 
well  as  from  him  who  uses  the  electric  power  which 
may  be  generated  from  it. 


The  Conservation  Bill  139 

The  conservationist  would  have  it  controlled  by  the 
State  for  the  use  of  all  The  People.120 

The  fight  between  the  exploiter  and  the  conservation- 
ist is  not  local,  but  nation-wide.  The  exploiter  is 
playing  for  a  stake  even  greater  than  that  for  which  the 
railroad  promoters  played  half  a  century  ago.  Gifford 
Pinchot  has  pointed  out  that  the  seat  of  the  exploiter's 
operations  is  Wall  Street.  The  exploiter's  activities  ex- 
tend into  the  South  as  well  as  into  the  West.  Here  in 
California  he  has  resisted  every  move  that  tends  to 
place  this  water  resource  beyond  the  toll-taker's  reach. 

120  James  F.  Farraher  in  an  article  dealing  with  the  1913 
Water  Conservation  bill,  which  was  published  in  the  Sacramento 
Bee,  points  out  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  State's  history 
under  American  occupation,  the  principle  that  there  shall  be  no 
private  ownership  or  control  in  a  water  surplus  has  been  recog- 
nized. Mr.  Farraher  describes  this  principle  as  "first  expressed 
in  the  miners'  rules  and  regulations  of  the  early  '50's,  recog- 
nized by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  in  1853  (Ogden  v.  Mills, 
3  California  Reports,  253),  written  into  the  Statutes  of  the 
United  States  in  1866  and  into  the  Civil  Code  of  California  In 
1872,  approved  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
1879  (Atchison  v.  Peterson,  87  U.  S.,  507),  and  incorporated  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  in  1879.  The  Constitutional  pro- 
vision (Sec.  1,  Art.  14)  reads  as  follows: 

"  'The  use  of  all  water  now  appropriated,  or  that  may  here- 
after be  appropriated  for  sale,  rental  or  distribution,  is  hereby 
declared  to  be  a  public  use  and  subject  to  the  regulation  and 
control  of  the  State  in  manner  to  be  prescribed  by  law.' 

"The  Water  Commission  (Conservation)  Act,"  Mr.  Farraher 
adds,  "creates  a  'manner  prescribed  by  law'  to  effect  that  'regu- 
lation and  control.'  " 

The  common  law  rule  of  humid  England,  where  irrigation  is 
unknown,  that  "the  riparian  proprietor  has  the  unchallengable 
right  to  have  the  waters  of  the  stream  flowing  through  his  lands 
continue  to  flow  undiminished  in  quantity  and  undeteriorated  in 
quality,"  which  the  California  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Lux 
v.  Haggin  applied  in  arid  California,  where  irrigation  is  a  neces- 
sity, Farraher  points  out  is  largely  responsible  for  the  water 
monopolies  of  the  State.  Power  companies,  for  example,  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  become  riparian  proprietors  so  as  to  be  able 
to  prevent  diversion  from  the  stream  above. 

Francis  J.  Heney  contends  that  the  doctrine  of  riparian  rights 
never  had  any  proper  application  in  this  State:  that  It  has  never 
been  recognized  in  Colorado,  Nevada,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  Utah, 
Idaho  or  Wyoming;  that  it  ought  never  to  have  been  recognized 
in  this  State;  that  it  never  was  recognized  in  California  until 
our  Supreme  Court  established  the  rule  in  the  case  of  Lux  v 
Haggin. 


140  The  Conservation  Bill 

The  conservation  bills  of  the  1911  session,  in  spite  of 
determined  resistance,121  became  laws.  They  were  con- 
sidered under  two  heads. 

The  first  provided  the  machinery  by  which  the  State's 
natural  resources  could  be  listed.  The  second  were  in 
the  nature  of  emergency  measures  to  hold  to  the  State 
those  resources  which  private  interests  had  not  grabbed, 
until  such  time  as  more  comprehensive  legislation  could 
be  enacted. 

At  the  extra  session  of  1911,  the  Legislature  with 
the  data  of  a  year's  investigation  before  it,  attempted  to 
enact  such  comprehensive  legislation.  But  conservation 
in  the  concrete  met  with  immediate  resistance.  In  the 
confusion  Progressive  and  Reactionary  were  found 
working  side  by  side  against  the  proposed  law.122  As  a 
result,  the  extra  session  adjourned  without  satisfactory 
action  on  conservation  having  been  taken. 

Such  was  the  status  of  conservation  legislation  in 
California  when  the  1913  session  convened.  The  1913 
Legislature,  however,  had  advantage  over  that  of  1911, 
in  having  before  it  the  data  on  the  State's  natural  re- 
sources accumulated  by  the  Conservation  Commission 
which  was  authorized  at  the  1911  session.123  The  Com- 


121  See    Story    of    the    California    Legislature    of    1911,    Chapter 
XII,   page   156. 

122  Assembly    Bill    69    (Series    Extra    Session    1911).     This    bill 
was  defeated  in  the  Assembly  Dec.  15,  1911.     Senate  Bill  48,  prac- 
tically re-enacting  the  measure  passed  at  the  regular  session,  was 
finally  passed  as   the  best   possible   compromise   that   could,    under 
the  circumstances,   be  reached. 

128  This  report,  known  officially  as  "The  Report  of  the  Con- 
servation Commission  of  the  State  of  California,  1912,"  contains 
data  of  incalculable  value  to  The  People  of  California.  It  can 
be  had  by  addressing  the  Conservation  Commission  at  San  Fran- 
cisco, or  the  State  Printer  at  Sacramento. 


The  Conservation  Bill  141 

mission  had  also  drawn  a  bill  covering  the  situation.124 

This  bill  was  the  principal  conservation  measure  con- 
sidered by  the  1913  Legislature.  It  was  introduced  in 
the  Senate  by  Kehoe  (Senate  Bill  606)  and  in  the  As- 
sembly by  Johnstone  (Assembly  Bill  642). 

The  Act  provided  for  a  commission  of  five  members, 
the  Governor  of  the  State  and  the  State  Engineer  acting 
as  ex-officio  members,  and  three  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor.  This  commission  was  intended  to  act  as  an 
agency  for  the  control  and  distribution  of  the  waters  of 
the  State,  on  much  the  same  lines  as  the  State  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners  controls  public  utilities. 
The  commission  was  empowered: 

(1)  To  pass  upon  applications  for  water  rights. 

(2)  To  ascertain  the  rights  of  those  who  claim  water 
privileges. 

The  measure  embraced  two  most  important  prin- 
ciples : 

(1)  That  the  State  shall  have  the  right  to  control 
the  development  of  all  water  power  and  to  receive  com- 
pensation for  it. 

(2)  That  the  doctrine  of  riparian  rights,  so-called, 
shall  absolutely  cease  to  exist  in  this  State  at  the  end  of 
ten  years  from  the  time  the  bill  goes  into  effect,  and  in 
the   meantime   the   doctrine   shall   extend   only  to   that 

124  "The  Conservation  and  Water  Power  Commissions,"  said 
Governor  Johnson  in  his  message  to  the  1913  Legislature,  "have 
practically  concluded  their  work,  and  have  presented  a  most  val- 
uable report  of  their  investigations  within  the  past  two  years. 
Their  recommendations  are  embodied  in  certain  bills  which  will  be 
presented  to  you.  The  data  which  has  been  supplied  to  the  State 
by  the  Conservation  Commission  will  be  of  great  and  lasting 
value.  The  bill  relating  to  water  and  water  power  presented  by 
the  Conservation  Commission  is  a  measure  of  very  great  im- 
portance." 


142  The  Conservation  Bill 

amount  of  water  which  shall  be  actually  applied  to  use- 
ful and  beneficial  purposes  upon  the  land  riparian  to  the 
stream  upon  which  the  so-called  right  is  claimed.125 

The  measure  provided  against  capitalization  of  any 
State-granted  water  right.  Here  a  direct  blow  was 
struck  at  the  exploitation  of  the  State's  water  resources. 
These  "rights"  are,  of  course,  priceless.  For  them,  the 
exploiter,  if  required  to  do  so,  would  pay  any  sum  with- 
in his  power.  The  framers  of  the  bill  held  that  no 
matter  how  large  the  sum  paid  for  a  water  right  it 
would  be  inadequate.  They  contended  that  the  "rights" 
should  be  parted  with  only  on  condition  that  profit  be 
not  made  out  of  them.  Those  to  whom  such  "rights" 
might  be  granted  would,  under  the  terms  of  the  bill,  be 
permitted  to  reap  legitimate  profit  on  their  actual  in- 
vestment, but  they  would  not  be  permitted  to  command 
profits  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  "right."  126 

125  This  provision  created  much  opposition. 

126  Governor  Pardee  in  explaining  this  feature  of  the  bill  cites 
the  following  example  to   show   the  importance  of  preventing  the 
capitalization   of    "rights"    which    The   People   give   away: 

"One  power  company  in  this  State — they  are  all  alike — is  cap- 
italized for  $20,000,000.  Of  this  sum,  only  $6,000,000  represents 
money  actually  invested.  The  remaining  $14,000,000  represents  the 
value  which  the  corporation  puts  on  the  water  rights  it  has. 
These  water  rights  The  People  gave  for  nothing.  Yet  The  People 
are  compelled  to  pay  the  company  rates  which  will  bring  it  re- 
turns on  those  $14,000,000.  If  the  company  were  not  permitted — 
as  it  should  not  be — to  capitalize  its  water  rights,  the  patrons  of 
this  particular  company  would  be  compelled  to  pay  it  rates 
which  would  bring  in  returns  only  on  $6,000,000,  instead  of  on 
$20,000,000.  The  (Conservation)  bill  provides  against  such  a  con- 
tingency in  the  future. 

"If  the  public  should  want  to  buy  the  plant  of  this  particular 
company,  it  would  have  to  pay  at  least  $20,000,000  for  It — 
$6,000,000  of  actual  investment  and  $14,000,000  for  water  rights, 
which  it,  the  public,  gave  for  nothing. 

"If  this  (Conservation)  bill  had  been  the  law  when  this  com- 
pany was  organized,  the  public  would  have  been  protected,  and 
the  company  would  have  been  given  its  legitimate  profits  on  Its 
actual  investment  for  twenty  years  and  as  much  longer  as  the 
public  did  not  want  to  buy  the  plant.  After  twenty  years,  if 
the  public  wanted  the  plant,  it  would  have  had  to  pay  only 
$6,000,000,  plus  $600,000,  for  it — a  saving,  without  in  any  way 
treating  the  company  unfairly,  of  $13,400,000." 


The  Conservation  Bill  143 

The  measure  preserved  the  important  Progressive 
principle  that  the  water  power  in  the  State  which  has 
not  passed  into  private  hands  shall  remain  in  perpetual 
ownership  of  The  People  of  the  State,  when  developed 
by  private  capital,  the  power  being  held  under  lease- 
hold only,  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  forty  years. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  first  half  of  the  session,  an 
authorless  conservation  bill  (Senate  Bill  1648)  made 
its  appearance.  The  measure  was  introduced,  not  by 
a  Senator  as  sponsor,  but  by  the  Committee  on  Rules.127 
This  sponsorless  bill  bore  much  the  same  relation  to 

127  This  measure  was  Introduced  In  accordance  with  a  reso- 
lution adopted  February  3,  authorizing  the  Committee  on  Rules 
to  introduce  by  request,  bills  which  might  be  presented  to  it. 
No  individual  Senator  was,  under  this  arrangement,  required  to 
stand  sponsor  for  measures  thus  introduced. 

Under  this  resolution,  some  of  the  most  vicious  measures  that 
made  their  appearance  at  the  1913  session,  got  to  the  floor  of  the 
Senate.  Prominent  among  them  was  Senate  Bill  1649.  The 
authorship  of  this  measure  is  as  mysterious  as  that  of  Senate 
Bill  1648.  Senate  Bill  1649  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  person 
to  walk  along  a  railroad  track.  When  under  discussion  in  the 
Senate,  Tyrrell  of  Alameda  demanded  that  the  bill's  author  make 
himself  known.  Senator  Wright  of  San  Diego  spoke  In  favor  of 
the  bill,  and  from  time  to  time  offered  amendment  or  advocated 
its  passage,  but  denied  authorship.  The  bill  had  easy  course 
through  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  and  repeated  efforts 
were  made  in  the  Senate  to  force  its  passage.  But  members  of 
the  type  of  Benson  of  Santa  Clara  pointed  out  that  one  tendency 
of  its  passage  would  be  to  make  railroads  even  more  careless 
than  they  now  are.  Larkins  denounced  the  measure.  The  State 
Railroad  Commission,  when  asked  to  give  an  opinion,  put  a  few 
pertinent  questions  to  the  Senate. 

"The  bill,"  reported  the  Commission,  "is  uncertain  in  that  it 
does  not  specify  when  a  person  has  a  right  to  walk  along  a  rail- 
road track,  or  to  get  on  or  off  a  train,  car  or  engine.  To  say 
that  a  person  cannot  do  these  things  without  right  leaves  open 
the  entire  question  of  when  the  right  to  do  so  exists.  We  would 
suggest  that  if  the  bill  is  to  be  passed,  it  be  made  definite  with 
respect  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  right  to  do  these 
acts  exist. 

"We  are  unable,  without  further  investigation,  to  express  an 
opinion  on  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  bill  is  a  wise 
one  without  at  least  very  material  limitations.  For  instance,  Is 
It  Just  to  make  It  a  misdemeanor  for  a  person  to  walk  along  a 
railroad  track  where  the  railroad  company  should  have  fenced 
the  track,  but  has  failed  to  do  so? 

"Again,  is  it  a  wise  State  policy  to  make  walking  on  a  rail- 
road track  a  misdemeanor  in  cases  In  which  it  is  a  great  con- 
venience to  use  the  tracks,  and  in  which  the  surrounding  cir- 


144  The  Conservation  Bill 

the  effective  Conservation  measure,  as  did  the  Wright 
Railroad  Regulation  bill  of  1909,  to  the  effective  Stet- 
son bill.128 

The  measure  prescribed  a  method  of  procedure  in 
acquiring  water  rights  by  appropriation,  but  it  pro- 
vided no  regulation  "before  commencing  work."  The 
corporation  or  individual  who  might  be  holding  water 
rights  on  one  pretext  or  another  could  not  be  reached 
until  development  was  undertaken.  The  water  grab- 
bers would,  had  this  bill  been  enacted,  have  been  left 
as  safely  beyond  reach  of  the  law  as  they  were  before 
the  passage  of  the  first  conservation  measures  in  1911. 

Another  clause  excluded  from  the  provisions  of  the 
measure  "application  for  water  for  the  generation  of 
electricity." 

Instead  of  being  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Irri- 
gation which  was  considering  the  Conservation  Com- 
mission's bill,  this  measure  was  sent  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee.  So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  the  authorship 
of  this  measure  was  never  discovered.  If  the  intention 
was  to  use  it  as  the  Wright  Railroad  Regulation  bill 
had  been  used  in  1909,  to  confuse  the  issue,  the  plan 

cunistances  are  such  that  there  is  very  little  or  no  danger  arising 
from  such  use  of  the  tracks? 

"Again,  would  it  be  wise  to  apply  the  sweeping  provisions  of 
the  bill  to  a  case  in  which,  we  will  say,  only  a  train  or  two  per 
day  are  run  over  a  track  and  in  which  such  trains  are  run  during 
the  day  time  through  an  open  country,  and  in  which  persons 
going  to  or  coming  from  their  work,  or  other  persons,  find  It  a 
great  convenience  to  be  able  to  use  the  track  during  periods  of 
the  day  when  no  trains  were  running?" 

After  the  reading  of  the  Commission's  report  in  the  Senate, 
the  "bug"  bill  was  re-referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  No 
further  action  on  it  was  taken. 

That  the  bill  will  be  "slipped"  through  some  future  Legisla- 
ture Is  not  improbable.  Corporations  bent  upon  securing  legisla- 
tion of  this  kind  seldom  yield  to  defeat. 

128  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapters 
XII  and  XIII. 


The  Conservation  Bill  145 

did  not  get  far.  The  weak  points  of  the  Committee 
on  Rules  bill  were  brought  out,  and  the  measure  was 
not  pressed.  The  opponents  of  conservation— repre- 
sented by  one  of  the  most  powerful  lobbies  that  ever 
assembled  at  Sacramento — devoted  themselves  to  efforts 
to  defeat  the  measure  which  the  Conservation  Commis- 
sion had  drawn. 

The  public  hearing  on  the  bill  was  held  in  the 
Senate  Chamber.129  The  most  conspicuous  group  in 
the  Chamber  was  made  up  of  attorneys,  officials,  agents 
and  other  clerks  of  water,  power,  irrigation  and  kindred 
companies,  who  had  drifted  in  from  Capitol  corridors 
and  hotel  lobbies  where  most  of  their  time  at  Sacra- 
mento was  spent.  But  for  the  most  part  they  sat  in 
silence,  listening  to  the  arguments.  Nevertheless,  their 
side  was  presented.  George  O.  Perry,  representing  the 
"Northern  California  Water  Association";  George  R. 
Freeman,  representing  the  Executive  Committee  of  the 
Southern  Counties  Water  Users'  Protective  Associa- 
tion, and  L.  A.  Nares,  representing  Fresno  County 
water  interests,  spoke  against  the  bill. 

For  the  bill  appeared  George  C.  Pardee,  Francis  J. 
Heney,  C.  E.  Keech  and  Francis  Cuttle. 

The  important  difference  between  the  two  groups 
was,  that  the  score  or  more  of  opponents  of  the  meas- 
ure present  were  well  paid  to  present  arguments 
against  the  measure.  The  proponents  of  the  bill  were 
at  Sacramento  at  their  own  expense,  solely  in  the  in- 


129  The  committee  members  present  at  the  joint  meeting 
were:  Senators  Anderson,  Larklns  and  Mott;  Assemblymen  Gary, 
Finnegan.  Johnstone,  Judson,  Morganstem  and  Wall. 


146  The  Conservation  Bill 

terest  of  a  great  principle — conservation  of  the  State's 
natural  resources. 

Some  such  consideration  as  this  was  evidently  in 
Cuttle's  mind  when  he  began  the  opening  argument  for 
the  bill  by  saying: 

"How  many  are  actively  looking  after  the  interests 
of  The  People,  in  saving  to  them  the  wealth  of  the 
natural  resources  which  they  now  own?  Probably  not 
in  the  whole  country  are  there  100  who  are  thus  en- 
gaged. But  there  are  many  able  attorneys  employed' 
to  assist  private  interests  in  their  efforts  to  get  large 
quantities  of  these  resources  away  from  The  People 
and  into  private  hands." 

Cuttle's  few  words  told  the  story  of  the  quiet  but 
far-reaching  fight  that  was  being  carried  on  against 
the  bill.  None  attempted  to  dispute  him.  There  were 
too  many  exhibits  in  the  room  to  show  the  truth  of 
his  statements  for  that.. 

Francis  J.  Heney  discussed  exhaustively  the  policy 
of  conservation.  He  held,  on  the  theory  that  every 
child  is  entitled  to  equal  chance  with  every  other  child, 
the  legislation  under  consideration  to  be  most  important. 
Equality  cannot  be  maintained,  Heney  contended,  unless 
the  growth  of  enormous  fortunes  in  the  hands  of  the 
few  be  prevented.  Those  who  control  the  means  of 
producing  wealth  will,  he  insisted,  control  men.180 

130  Heney  traced  the  methods  of  production  of  wealth  from 
the  age  when  man  was  dependent  In  wealth-producing  upon  the 
energy  of  his  own  body.  With  the  development  of  the  steam 
engine,  man  found  he  could  employ  the  energy  of  nature  as 
found  in  growing  trees.  Within  the  last  hundred  years,  man 
discovered  a  further  source  of  energy  in  coal.  Then  came  the 
use  of  petroleum;  later  of  natural  gas,  and  finally,  within  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century,  the  employment  of  falling  water  in  generating 
electricity. 

In  this  country,   instead  of  depending  upon  the  energy  of  90,- 


The  Conservation  Bill  147 

George  O.  Perry,  speaking  against  the  bill,  declared 
the  water  commission  provided  for  in  the  Act  to  be 
unnecessary  and  expensive;  that  the  passage  of  the  bill 
would  discourage  capital  investing  in  California;  that 
it  revolutionized  provisions  of  the  law  relating  to  prop- 
erty rights ;  that  it  would  injure  the  small  farmer 1S1 

000,000  people  to  furnish  the  necessary  energy  for  the  production 
of  wealth,  we  have  the  energy  that  can  be  had  from  growing 
timber,  coal,  petroleum,  natural  gas  and  falling  waters.  Last 
year  coal  alone  furnished  in  industry  in  this  country  the  energy 
of  312,000,000  men.  The  water  power  of  the  country,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  its  development,  furnishes  the  energy  of  72,000,000 
men.  In  the  State  of  California  alone  is  water  power  sufficient 
to  do  the  work  of  65,000,000  men. 

Heney  showed  how  power-generated  electricity  is  being  applied 
in  railroading,  and  predicted  that  within  ten  years  most  of  the 
transcontinental  trains  would  be  run  by  electricity. 

The  conservationist  would  keep  the  source  of  this  tremendous 
energy  for  The  People.  Heney  showed  the  folly  of  the  policy  of 
getting  natural  resources  into  private  hands  on  the  theory  that 
this  is  the  way  to  get  it  used.  In  this  State,  for  example,  on 
the  theory  that  it  must  go  into  private  hands  to  be  used,  four- 
fifths  of  the  timber  has  gone  from  the  possession  of  the  whole 
people.  Heney  charged  that  one-half  of  this  timber  is  held  in 
"cold  storage"  by  two  principal  owners,  the  Southern  Pacific  and 
the  Walker  interests.  To  permit  the  water  power  to  pass  from 
The  People  to  the  few  will  not  mean  its  use,  but  its  exploitation. 

"Eight  years  ago,"  concluded  Heney,  "when  Pinchot  predicted 
that  the  water  power  of  the  country  was  in  danger  of  passing 
into  the  hands  of  the  few,  he  was  laughed  at.  At  the  present 
time  60  per  cent,  of  the  developed  water  power  of  the  country  is 
owned  by  ten  corporations,  and  is  controlled  by  less  than  ten 
men.  In  California,  90  per  cent,  of  the  developed  water  power  is 
controlled  by  three  corporations. 

"Under  such  conditions,  equality  disappears.  Unless  changed 
in  the  next  generation,  this  power  will  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
descendants  of  those  who  secure  control  of  it  in  this  generation. 
J.  Pierpont  Morgan  has  said  that  'you  can't  unscramble  eggs.' 
It  rests  with  this  generation  to  see  that  the  eggs  don't  get 
scrambled. 

"The  Constitution  says  that  private  property  shall  not  be  taken 
for  public  use  without  compensation.  If  I  had  my  way,  public 
property  should  not  be  taken  for  private  use  without  compensa- 
tion." 

131  The  small  farmer  and  miner  argument  was  employed  con- 
stantly by  the  representatives  of  the  power  and  the  water  com- 
panies. John  Fairweather  in  the  Fresno  Republican  touches  upon 
this  concern  for  Eastern  exploiters  and  California  "water  hogs," 
for  the  well-being  of  the  small  California  ranch  owner.  Fair- 
weather  shows  that  the  "water  hog,"  not  the  actual  user  of 
water,  would  be  affected  by  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

"Where  a  person,"  said  Fairweather,  "under  the  present  law 
has  peacefully  used  his  water  for  five  years  on  his  land  nothing 
can  take  it  from  him  and  the  bill  doesn't  attempt  to  do  it,  but 


148  The  Conservation  Bill 

and  miner;  that  it  gives  those  who  have  acquired  water 
rights  advantages  over  those  who  may  acquire  them  in 
the  future;  that  it  attempts  to  deprive  owners  of  ripa- 
rian rights  without  compensation. 

George  R.  Freeman  followed  Perry.  He  held  that 
the  development  of  law  governing  water  rights  in  Cali- 
fornia has  had  the  benefit  of  the  best  ability  of  Cali- 
fornia judges.  He  stated  that  no  branch  of  the  law 
is  better  understood  than  the  water  law  which  has  been 
built  up  by  the  courts  independent  of  the  Legislature. 
The  Conservation  bill  proposed  a  new  system.  To  enact 
it  would  be  a  change  from  certainty  to  uncertainty. 
Freeman  predicted  that  its  enactment  would  result  in 
long  and  complicated  litigation. 

The  arguments  of  Perry  and  Freeman  were  not  new. 
They  had  been  heard  at  the  1911  session  when  the  first 
steps  toward  conserving  the  State's  natural  resources 
were  taken.132 

Governor  Pardee,  replying  to  the  opponents  of  the 
bill,  stated  that  at  the  1911  session  he  had  heard  the 
same  dismal  prophesies  to  which  he  had  been  listening, 
that  the  development  of  the  State  would  be  retarded; 
that  the  poor  man  would  be  injured.  But  the  step  had 
been  taken;  the  direful  prophesies  had  not  been  ful- 
filled. 

It  will  prevent  the  'water  hog'  that  cannot,  or  will  not  use  the 
flood  waters  of  our  rivers  from  keeping  other  people  from  using 
them.  Respecting  that  10  cents  per  miner's  inch  this  does  not  ap- 
ply to  any  waters  already  appropriated,  and  if  it  did,  it  would  only 
amount  to  about  2  cents  per  acre,  as  we  use  water  In  this 
county,  it  is  only  10  cents  per  miner's  inch  once  a  year,  accord- 
ing to  the  capacity  of  the  ditch." 

The  interesting  point  of  the  argument  that  the  passage  of 
the  bill  would  injure  the  small  water  user,  is  that  it  was  made 
by  corporations  which  are  scarcely  to  be  classed  as  small  users. 

182  For  the  fight  against  conservation  at  the  1911  session,  see 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  Chapter  XII. 


The  Conservation  Bill  149 

Pardee  stated  that  the  opponents  of  the  bill  want 
the  old  order  to  go  on.  Some  said  it  is  not  the  time 
to  begin;  others  that  it  is  too  late.  But  Pardee  held 
that  it  is  never  too  late  to  reform.  And  the  time  to 
begin  is  now. 

The  proposed  plan  Pardee  held  not  to  be  an  ex- 
periment. It  has  been  tried,  he  pointed  out,  in  Oregon. 

"The  Conservation  bill  will  do  for  California,"  he 
concluded,  "what  the  proponents  of  conservation  think 
it  will  do." 

Little  that  was  new  was  brought  out  by  either  side; 
the  committeemen  probably  left  the  meeting  unchanged 
in  their  convictions  for  or  against  the  bill.  After  the 
meeting  the  proponents  of  the  measure  redoubled  their 
efforts  to  have  it  sent  back  to  Senate  or  Assembly, 
while  the  opposition  labored  for  delay. 

The  citizen  who  has  never  attended  a  legislative 
session  can  scarcely  appreciate  •  the  importance  of  se- 
curing early  action.  A  day's  delay  may  cause  a  bill's 
defeat.  The  secret  of  the  situation  of  the  Conservation 
bill,  as  of  the  other  important  progressive  measures, 
was  that  the  opponents  of  progressive  policies  realized 
that  should  the  bills  come  to  a  vote  their  passage 
would  be  very  probable.  The  work  of  the  lobby  was 
not  only  to  present  arguments  against  the  bills,  but 
so  far  as  possible  delay  action  upon  them  in  commit- 
tee, and  even  after  they  had  been  sent  to  Senate  or 
Assembly. 

After  the  committee  hearing — and  the  fact  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  this  hearing  was  held  before 
both  the  Senate  and  Assembly  committees — a  number 
of  amendments  were  suggested  by  the  supporters  of 


150  The  Conservation  Bill 

the  measure  as  well  as  by  its  opponents.  A  second 
joint  committee  meeting  was  suggested  to  consider 
these  proposed  changes,  but  for  one  reason  and  another 
the  two  committees  could  not  be  gotten  together.  The 
bill  and  the  proposed  amendments  were  therefore  re- 
ferred to  a  sub-committee. 

The  measure  was  discussed  before  the  sub-commit- 
tee line  by  line.  Francis  J.  Heney,  James  F.  Farraher, 
John  M.  Eshleman  and  former  Governor  George  C. 
Pardee  rendered  invaluable  service.  Governor  Pardee 
for  a  fortnight  was  at  the  committee  room  from  9 
o'clock  every  morning  until  midnight  and  after,  ready 
to  explain  the  provisions  of  the  bill  to  all  comers.  On 
the  outside,  the  opposing  lobby  spent  their  time  in 
creating  opinion  against  the  bill,  in  encouraging  delays, 
in  stirring  up  opinion  outside  the  Legislature  unfavor- 
able to  it. 

It  was  not  until  April  1,  two  weeks  after  the  joint 
hearing,  that  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  Assembly  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed  as  amended. 

The  amendments  proposed  by  the  committee  were 
adopted  without  difficulty.  The  Conservation  bill  had 
passed  the  first  stage  of  its  enactment. 


CHAPTER  X. 
THE   FIGHT  IN   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

Although  the  Conservation  bill  had  passed  the  As- 
sembly Committee  on  Conservation,  it  was  not  through 
all  the  Assembly  committees  which,  under  parliamentary 
practice,  were  'to  act  upon  it.  The  measure  carried 
an  appropriation  of  $150,000  for  the  fiscal  years  1913-14 
and  1914-15 — $75,000  a  year.  All  measures  carrying 
appropriations  are  sent  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee of  the  Assembly  and  to  the  Senate  Finance 
Committee.  In  the  regular  course  of  legislative  busi- 
ness the  bill  went  to  the  Assembly  Ways  and  Means 
Committee. 

Attempts  made  to  have  the  committee  reduce  the 
amount  of  the  appropriation  failed.  Chandler  of  Fresno 
was  chairman  of  this  committee.  It  was  largely  to 
Chandler's  efforts  that  appropriations  had  been  kept 
down  at  the  1911  session.  He  has  the  reputation  of 
paring  appropriations  to  the  last  necessary  dollar.  But 
the  importance  of  the  work  provided  for  in  this  bill, 
and  the  necessity  of  providing  adequate  appropriation 
for  the  work,  were  so  apparent  to  Chandler  and  the 
well-informed  members  of  his  committee,  that  they  sent 
the  bill  back  to  the  Assembly,  with  recommendation  that 
it  be  passed,  without  reduction  in  the  appropriation. 

Then  followed  a  series  of  delays  which  for  weeks 
kept  the  measure  from  passage.  When  the  bill  came  up 
for  second  reading  on  April  12,  for  example,  it  was 


152  The  Fight  in  the  Assembly 

discovered  to  contain  a  grammatical  error,188  which  re- 
quired correction.  This  could  be  done  only  by  amend- 
ment. To  amend  the  bill  necessitated  re-printing.  This 
meant  delay.  Three  days  later,  April  15,  the  bill  came 
back  from  the  printer. 

In  the  meantime  a  State-wide  publicity  campaign 
had  been  carried  on  against  the  bill.  The  people  of 
the  interior  were  led  to  believe  that  in  some  way  they 
would  be  injured  by  its  passage.  About  the  time  the 
bill  got  back  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 
the  effects  of  the  publicity  work  began  to  be  seen.  Let- 
ters from  alarmed  constituents  began  to  pour  in  upon 
the  members  urging  them  to  vote  against  the  bill's 
passage.134  These  uninformed  objectors  gave  no  rea- 
sons why  the  bill  should  be  defeated,  except  that  they 
thought  its  passage  would  be  unwise.  The  inspiration 
of  some  of  these  protesting  letters  was  actually  traced 
to  lawyers  lobbying  at  Sacramento  who  were  in  the  em- 
ploy of  the  power  companies.  One  of  the  principal 
arguments  used  against  the  bill  was  that  its  passage 

133  The  word  "their"  had  been  substituted  for  the  word  "his." 

134  W.     A.     Fitzgerald,     the    legislative    correspondent    of    the 
Fresno    Republican,    in    the    issue    of   that   publication    for   May   3, 
thus   described    the   flght  which    the   power   companies   maintained 
against   this   bill: 

"By  methods  as  old  as  Aesop,  the  Power  Trust  lobby  made  a 
successful  fight  against  the  bill.  The  power  companies  main- 
tained a  number  of  lawyers  here  and  a  corps  of  stenographers. 
Farmers  and  miners  were  flooded  with  press  bureau  matter,  and 
deceived  into  acting  as  a  catspaw,  they  began  besieging  their  rep- 
resentatives with  telegrams  and  protests.  It  Is  reliably  reported 
that  the  flght  cost  the  power  companies  $75,000  for  the  session. 

"The  tactics  were  brought  home  when  a  constituent  of  John- 
stone's  was  In  Sacramento  a  week  or  ten  days  ago  attending  a 
convention.  He  had  sent  Johnstone  a  telegram  against  the 
water  bill.  Johnstone  asked  him  what  his  objection  was  and  he 
replied  that  he  had  not  read  the  bill,  knew  nothing  about  it, 
but  had  received  an  urgent  letter  from  an  attorney  asking  him 
to  protest  against  the  bill.  The  attorney  was  one  of  the  number 
here  In  Sacramento  working  In  the  interest  of  the  power  com- 
panies." 


The  Fight  in  the  Assembly  153 

would  benefit  the  power  companies  and  injure  the  small 
users  of  water  for  irrigation  or  power  purposes.  It 
was  even  announced  that  Francis  Cuttle,  member  of 
the  Conservation  Commission,  and  who  had  had  much 
to  do  with  the  framing  of  the  measure,  was  opposed  to 
its  passage.  This  story  was  believed,  until  a  letter  from 
Cuttle  denying  the  report  and  urging  the  bill's  passage 
was  read  in  the  Assembly.  Such  incidents  indicate  the 
methods  employed  to  discredit  the  measure  with  the 
Legislature  and  with  the  general  public. 

The  effect  of  this  campaign  of  lobby  activity  at  Sac- 
ramento and  of  misrepresentation  throughout  the  State, 
was  seen  when,  on  April  17,  the  measure  came  up  in 
the  Assembly  for  final  passage. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill,  who  had  counted  upon 
its  passage  without  serious  opposition,  were  unorgan- 
ized; their  speakers  were  not  ready;  they  were  without 
a  definite  plan.  Several  whom  they  had  counted  with 
them  were  at  the  last  moment  found  to  be  against  them. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  opposition  was  thoroughly  or- 
ganized, and  determined  to  force  a  vote  and  the  bill's 
defeat.  Far  from  being  in  a  position  to  fight  for  the 
bill's  passage,  its  supporters  found  themselves  in  the 
humiliating  position  of  being  compelled  to  plead  for 
delay.  They  finally,  by  a  vote  of  43  to  3 1,135  got  a 

IBS  It  was  said  at  the  time  the  proponents  of  the  measure 
"literally  had  to  grab  their  bacon  and  run."  The  vote  by  which 
they  secured  their  four  days'  delay  was: 

For  delay — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bush, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Cram,  Ellis, 
Emmons,  Farwell,  Flnnegan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Guill, 
Hayes,  Hlnkle,  Johnstone,  W.  A.  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  McDon- 
ald, Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Roberts, 
Ryan,  Scott,  Shartel,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Wall, 
Welsel,  and  Young — 43. 

For  immediate  action — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman,  Brad- 


154  The  Fight  in  the  Assembly 

delay  of  four  days.  Anything  else  would  have  meant 
complete  defeat.  But  this  success  of  the  bill's  support- 
ers was  also  something  of  a  success  for  its  opponents. 
Next  to  definite  defeat  of  the  measure,  its  opponents 
were  working  for  delay.  This  they  had  forced.  The 
Conservation  bill  was  admittedly  in  danger  of  defeat. 

A  conference  of  the  bill's  supporters  was  called. 
Again  was  the  measure  considered  line  by  line.  Amend- 
ments were  decided  upon  which,  while  not  affecting  the 
Act  materially,  tended  to  meet  objections  which  had 
been  raised.136 

The  amendments  were  not  acted  upon  until  April  22. 
On  that  day  they  were  adopted  without  serious  oppo- 
sition. 

But  the  amending  of  the  bill  necessitated  its  re-print- 
ing, which  involved  further  delay.  The  bill  was  re- 
turned from  the  printer  on  April  23.  But  it  was  not 
until  two  days  later  that  the  Assembly  had  opportunity 
to  act  upon  it. 

When  it  came  up  on  April  25,  Inman  of  Sacramento 


ford.  Brown,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Dower,  Ferguson,  Ford,  Gelder, 
Griffin,  Gulberson,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ; 
Killlngsworth,  Libby,  McCarthy,  Murray,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Polsley, 
Richardson,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch, 
Weldon,  and  White — 31. 

The  supporters  of  the  measure  voted  for  delay.  The  oppo- 
nents voted  for  Immediate  action. 

136  One  of  these  amendments  was  offered  by  James  F.  Farra- 
her.  It  was  as  follows: 

"And  all  waters  flowing  in  any  river,  stream,  canyon,  ravine 
or  other  natural  channel,  excepting  so  far  as  such  waters  have 
been  or  are  being  applied  to  useful  and  beneficial  purposes  upon, 
or  in  so  far  as  such  waters  are  or  may  be  reasonably  needed  for 
useful  and  beneficial  purposes  upon  lands  riparian  thereto,  is  and 
are  hereby  declared  to  be  public  waters  of  the  State  of  California 
and  subject  to  appropriation  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
this  Act" 


The  Fight  in  the  Assembly  155 

offered  an  amendment  which,  by  a  vote  of  34  to  20,137 
was  adopted.  The  adoption  meant  the  re-printing  of 
the  bill.  It  was  not  until  five  days  later,  April  30,  that 
the  bill  came  up  again  for  action. 

Simpson  138  of  Kern  and  Schmitt  of  San  Francisco, 
offered  amendments  which  were  promptly  rejected. 
Nevertheless,  the  measure  was  again  amended,  amend- 
ments offered  by  Woodley,139  Johnson,  Guiberson  and 
Brown  being  adopted.  Again  the  measure  had  to  be 

137  The  vote  on  Inman's  amendment  was: 

For  the  amendment — Alexander,  Bagby,  Bohnett,  Bowman, 
Bradford,  Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Cram,  Dower,  Ferguson, 
Ford,  Grlffln,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ; 
Kingsley,  LIbby,  Murray,  Nelson,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmitt,  Shan- 
non, Shartel,  Simpson,  Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch,  Wall, 
Weldon,  and  White— 34. 

Against  the  amendment — Ambrose,  Bloodgood,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ; 
Ellis,  Farwell,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Hinkle,  Johnston,  T.  D.; 
Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Kuck,  Moorhouse,  Peairs,  Roberts,  Scott,  Suth- 
erland, Weisel,  Woodley,  and  Young — 20. 

Inman's  amendment  provided  that  no  city  appropriating  water 
for  domestic  purposes  shall  sell  that  water  for  irrigation  pur- 
poses. The  amendment  as  adopted  read: 

"On  page  21,  line  8,  insert  the  following:  provided,  that  no 
municipality  shall  take  water  for  the  purpose  of  selling  or  other- 
wise disposing  of  the  same  for  irrigation  purposes." 

138  Simpson's    amendments    would    have    seriously   crippled    the 
bill.     The   first  offered  was   to  strike  out  all  of  Sections  24  to  36 
inclusive.     It  was  defeated  by  the  following  vote: 

For  the  amendment — Alexander,  Bagby,  Brown,  Clarke,  Geo. 
A.;  Dower,  Ford,  Gelder,  Griffin,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Libby,  Murray, 
Nelson,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmitt,  Shannon,  Shartel,  Shearer, 
Simpson,  Stuckenbruck,  Weldon,  and  White — 22. 

Against  the  amendment — Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Cary,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Collins, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald, 
Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Johnstone, 
W.  A.;  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  McCarthy,  Moorhouse,  Morgen- 
stern,  Mouser,  Peairs,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine, 
Sutherland,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 42. 

189  The  Woodley  amendment  was  made  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  Los  Angeles,  by  the  Inman  amendment  adopted  on 
April  25.  Under  the  Inman  amendment  Los  Angeles  would  have 
been  unable  to  dispose  of  the  surplus  water  of  her  municipal 
system.  The  Woodley  amendment  read: 

"Provided,  however,  that  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  con- 
strued as  limiting  in  any  way  the  use,  or  the  disposition  of  the 
use  of  any  water  appropriated,  acquired  or  held  by  any  munici- 
pality, prior  to  the  time  this  Act  shall  go  into  effect." 


156  The  Fight  in  the  Assembly 

reprinted.  It  was  returned  from  the  printer  on  May  1. 
On  May  2,  thirty-one  days  after  the  measure  had  been 
returned  to  the  Assembly  by  the  Committee  on  Conser- 
vation, it  was  brought  to  vote. 

A  method  of  legislative  bribery  not  yet  reached  by 
the  criminal  statutes  is  that  of  vote-trading;  a  form  of 
intimidation  not  yet  defined  in  the  Codes  is  that  of 
threatening  a  legislator  with  defeat  of  his  important 
measures  to  force  him  to  vote  against  his  convictions. 
Eventually  both  these  corrupt  practices  will  be  prop- 
erly classified,  both  in  public  opinion  and  in  law.  For 
a  member  to  agree  to  vote  for  a  measure  which  he 
knows  to  be  bad,  or  against  a  measure  which  he  knows 
to  be  good,  to  secure  support  for  his  own  bill,  is  quite 
as  mischievous  as  though  he  had  taken  cash  for  it.  For 
a  legislator  or  lobbyist  to  threaten  a  member  with  de- 
feat of  some  measure  in  the  passage  of  which  the 
member  or  his  constituents  may  be  interested,  classifies 
very  well  with  threat  to  do  injury  to  property  or  to 
person.  One  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  present  legisla- 
tive system  is  that  it  lends  itself  to  such  bribery  and 
to  such  intimidation.  And  while  it  might  have  been 
difficult  to  pick  an  individual  case  of  either  of  these 
particular  forms  of  corruption,  no  informed  observer 
of  the  campaign  to  defeat  the  Conservation  bill  when 
it  came  to  vote  in  the  Assembly,  could  doubt  there  had 
been  trading  for  votes,140  and  that  members  were  threat- 


140  The  legislative  correspondent  of  the  Fresno  Republican,  In  a 
letter  to  his  paper  published  May  3,  touched  upon  the  part  trading 
had  in  the  campaign  against  the  bill. 

"This  (Conservation)  bill,"  he  said,  "encountered  more  opposi- 
tion from  the  first  than  any  other  of  the  large  measures  before 
this  session  of  the  Legislature.  By  clever  tactics  it  was  amended 
every  time  it  came  up,  and  its  course  delayed  until  it  got 


The  Fight  in  the  Assembly  157 

ened  with  defeat  of  measures  in  the  passage  of  which 
they  were  interested,  or  with  the  passage  of  measures 
which  constituents  looked  to  them  to  defeat. 

As  the  roll-call  proceeded,  it  became  apparent  there 
were  not  enough  supporters  of  the  bill  present  to  ensure 
its  passage.  A  call  of  the  House  was  demanded  that 
the  absentees  might  be  brought  in.  For  nearly  three 
hours  the  sergeants-at-arms  hunted  for  the  absent  mem- 
bers. Twice  the  opponents  of  the  bill  endeavored  to 
have  the  call  of  the  House  dispensed  with  and  the  hunt 
for  the  absent  members  discontinued,1*1  but  the  motions 


entangled  with  petty  local  fights.  It  became  involved  with  the 
fight  to  exclude  the  Claremont  Hotel  from  the  University  mile 
dry  zone,  with  the  fight  to  place  a  dry  zone  around  Santa  Clara 
University,  and  with  other  fights.  Opponents  traded  right  and 
left  to  secure  votes  against  this  measure." 

1*1  The  first  motion  to  dispense  with  the  call  of  the  House 
was  made  by  Libby  of  Sonoma,  Libby's  motion  was  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  29  to  43  as  follows: 

To  dispense  with  call — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bradford, 
Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Dower,  Ford,  Gelder, 
Griffin,  Guill,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H.;  Killingworth,  Libby,  Mur- 
ray, Palmer,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson, 
Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Walsh,  Weldon,  White — 29. 

Against  dispensing  with  call — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bush,  Cary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Win.  C. ;  Cram,  Ellis, 
Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates, 
Green,  Hinkle,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson, 
Kingsley,  Kuck,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern, 
Mouser,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Shartel,  Smith, 
Strine,  Sutherland,  Wall,  Weisel,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  Young — 43. 

The  second  motion  to  that  end  was  made  by  Killingsworth  of 
Solano. 

Killingsworth's  motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  30  to  38,  as 
follows: 

To  dispense  with  the  call — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman, 
Bradford,  Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Dower,  Ford,  Gelder, 
Griffin,  Guiberson,  Inman,  Johnson.  Geo.  H. ;  Killingsworth,  Libby, 
Morgenstern,  Murray,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Shannon,  Shar- 
tel, Shearer,  Simpson,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Weldon,  and  White 
—30. 

Against  dispensing  with  the  call — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Blood- 
good,  Bohnett,  Cary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Cram,  Ellis, 
Emmons,  Farwell,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Guill, 
Hinkle,  Johnstone.  W.  A.;  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuek,  Moorkouse, 
Mouser,  Nelson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine, 
Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young 
—38. 


158  The  Fight  in  the  Assembly 

to  that  end  were  voted  down.  After  three  hours'  hunt, 
absentee  members  had  been  found  and  brought  to  the 
Assembly  Chamber,  until  there  were  enough  recorded 
as  present  in  the  room,  who  were  regarded  as  favoring 
the  bill,  to  ensure  for  it  the  forty-one  votes  necessary 
for  its  passage.  Among  these  were  Inman  of  Sacra- 
mento, at  whose  instigation  the  bill  had  been  amended 
to  meet  his  objection;  Canepa  of  San  Francisco  and 
Cram  of  San  Bernardino.  But  after  the  hunt  for  ab- 
sentees was  discontinued,  and  the  roll  was  called, 
Inman 142  of  Sacramento  voted  "no" ;  Canepa 143  and 
Cram  had  disappeared.  The  vote  stood  forty  for  the 
bill,  one  short  of  the  forty-one  necessary  for  its  passage, 
and  thirty-five  against.144  The  Assembly  Chamber  was 


142  "One  amendment  (to  the  Conservation  bill)"  says  the  legis- 
lative correspondent  of  the  Fresno  Republican,  in  the  issue  of  that 
paper  for  May  3,  "was  agreed  to  especially  to  meet  objections  by 
Inman,  Progressive  of  Sacramento,  but  on  the  final  vote  Inman 
was  with  the  opposition." 

148  There  were  various  versions  of  the  disappearance  of  Canepa 
and  Cram.  The  Associated  Press,  in  dispatches  sent  from  Sacra- 
mento, May  2,  1913,  stated:  "Cram  and  Canepa  took  advantage  of 
the  confusion  and  slipped  from  the  room."  The  Fresno  Republican 
(issue  of  May  4)  states  that  Canepa  was  in  the  cloak  room  "and 
caused  the  defeat  of  the  bill."  The  Sacramento  Union  (issue  of 
May  3),  stated  that  "while  Bohnett's  back  was  turned,  Cram, 
whose  constituents  disapproved  of  the  bill,  jumped  through  a  side 
window,  clambered  along  the  narrow  coping  of  the  building  and 
dodged  Into  the  Assembly  ante-room  unobserved.  Canepa  crawled 
down  the  outside  aisle  of  the  chamber  on  his  hands  and  knees 
from  his  seat  in  the  front  row  and  hid  in  the  lavatory." 

But  whichever  version  was  correct,  wherever  Cram  and 
Canepa  were,  or  how  they  got  away,  a  few  minutes  before  the 
vote  was  taken  they  were  in  the  Assembly  chamber,  and  when 
the  roll  was  called  they  were  not  there.  The  presence  of  either 
of  them,  had  he  voted  for  the  bill,  as  Canepa  did  the  following 
day,  would  have  saved  the  bill  from  defeat. 

144  The  vote  by  which  the  bill  was  defeated  on  May  2  was  as 
follows : 

For  the  bill — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bush, 
Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Ellis,  Bmmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson, 
Finnegan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Hinkle,  Johnston,  T.  D. ; 
Johnstone,  W.  A. ;  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  McDonald,  Moorhouse, 


The  Fight  in  the  Assembly  159 

in  great  disorder  and  excitement.  The  opponents  clam- 
ored for  announcement  of  the  vote,  and  the  recording 
of  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  Supporters  were  demanding 
another  call  of  the  House  that  the  absent  Assemblymen 
might  be  brought  back. 

Speaker  Young  paused  a  moment,  and  then  brought 
his  gavel  down,  announcing  the  vote,  and  the  defeat  of 
the  bill.145 


Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Shartel, 
Strine,   Sutherland,   Walsh,   Weisel,   Woodley,   Wyllie,  Young — 40. 

Against  the  bill — Alexander,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman,  Bradford, 
Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Dower,  Ford,  Gelder, 
Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Kil- 
lingsworth,  Libby,  McCarthy,  Murray,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Richardson, 
Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch, 
Wall,  Weldon,  and  White— 35. 

us  There  was  a  tendency  to  criticise  Young  for  announcing 
the  vote,  on  the  ground  that  Bohnett  was  at  the  moment  of  an- 
nouncement demanding  a  call  of  the  House.  Had  Young  adopted 
the  much  condemned  tactics  of  Speakers,  who,  under  "machine" 
rule,  acted  as  mere  puppets  in  carrying  out  "machine"  policies, 
he  would  have  withheld  the  announcement,  assisted  in  jockeying 
for  a  call  of  the  Assembly,  and  compelled  the  attendance  of  the 
skulking  members.  But  Young  was  not  acting  as  a  puppet.  He 
was  acting  as  a  Speaker  of  a  deliberative  body.  As  Speaker  of  a 
deliberative  body  it  was  his  duty  to  announce  the  vote,  without 
playing  to  give  either  side  the  advantage.  He  announced  the  vote. 


CHAPTER  XL 
CONSERVATION   BILL  PASSES  ASSEMBLY. 

The  Conservation  bill  had  not  been  voted  down; 
more  members  had  voted  for  it  than  against  it;  with 
the  attendance  of  all  compelled,  the  passage  of  the 
measure  was  assured.  But  the  bill  had  been  defeated. 
And  seldom  had  an  important  measure  been  in  a  more 
hopeless  tangle  at  announcement  of  the  vote.  In  the 
confusion  none  of  the  leaders  in  its  support  had  taken 
the  precaution  to  change  his  vote  to  the  winning  side, 
to  place  himself  in  the  parliamentary  position  to  give 
notice  of  intention  to  move  for  reconsideration.  If,  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  day,  one  of  the  thirty-five  mem- 
bers who  had  voted  against  the  bill  would  announce 
his  intention  to  move  for  reconsideration,  there  would 
be  one  chance  more  to  secure  a  full  vote,  which  would 
mean  the  bill's  passage.146 

During  the  noon  recess  the  bill's  supporters  labored 
to  find  some  member  who  had  voted  against  the  bill 
who  would  be  willing  to  give  notice  of  intention  to 
move  for  reconsideration.  McCarthy  of  San  Francisco 
agreed  finally  to  give  the  notice.  This  he  did.  But 
there  was  no  little  speculation  as  to  whether  or  not 


146  There  was  still  another  chance  to  compel  a  vote,  but  so 
desperate  that  none  of  the  friends  of  conservation  put  much 
dependance  upon  it.  The  companion  Kehoe  bill  (Senate  Bill  606) 
was  pending  in  the  Senate.  If  the  Kehoe  bill  could  be  put  through 
the  Senate,  a  vote  upon  it  might  be  compelled  In  the  Assembly. 
But  the  session  was  so  near  final  adjournment  that  it  is  not 
probable  that  this  could  have  been  done. 


Conservation  Bill  Passes  Assembly      161 

McCarthy  would  be  on  hand  the  next  day  to  make  the 
motion.  Not  a  few  labored  under  the  impression  that, 
since  McCarthy  had  given  the  notice  of  intention,  he 
alone  could  move  reconsideration.  Had  this  impression 
had  foundation,  the  absence  of  McCarthy  the  following 
day  would  mean  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  Opinion  was 
common  that  the  Conservationists  were  leaning  upon 
a  broken  reed.  But,  fortunately  for  the  bill's  propo- 
nents, notice  of  intention  to  move  for  reconsideration 
is  not  the  property  alone  of  him  who  gives  it,  but  of 
every  member  of  the  House.  This  fact  gave  added 
value  to  McCarthy's  motion. 

When  the  Assembly  roll  was  called  the  following 
morning,  McCarthy  did  not  answer  to  his  name.  As 
the  hour  for  the  noon  recess  approached,  Bohnett  took 
the  matter  out  of  McCarthy's  hands  and  himself  moved 
for  reconsideration. 

The  opponents  of  the  measure  were  awaiting  this 
motion.  They  were  ready.  And,  for  the  first  time,  the 
supporters  of  the  bill  were  prepared  and  ready  also. 
The  opposition  was  led  by  Killingsworth  and  Simpson. 
Theodore  A.  Bell  had  a  seat  on  the  Assembly  floor,  and 
it  was  openly  charged  that  he  was  there  to  direct  the 
fight  against  the  measure.  Bohnett  and  Johnstone 
headed  the  supporters  of  the  bill.  The  moment  Bohnett 
moved  for  reconsideration,  the  fight  began. 

Roll-call  on  Bohnett's  motion  had  not  proceeded  far 
before  it  was  discovered  that  many  members  had  left 
the  chamber.  Bohnett  moved  a  call  of  the  House  that 
the  absentees  might  be  brought  in.  This  was  granted. 
When  seventy-three  of  the  eighty  members  were  in  the 
chamber,  Bohnett  consented  to  discontinuance  of  the 


162      Conservation  Bill  Passes  Assembly 

call.  The  vote  was  taken,  and  Bohnett's  motion  to  re- 
consider carried  by  43  to  30.14T  The  opposition  had 
lost  the  first  skirmish. 

By  the  time  the  vote  for  reconsideration  had  been 
taken,  the  hour  of  recess  had  arrived.  Bohnett  moved 
that  the  hour  of  recess  be  extended  until  the  Conserva- 
tion bill  should  be  disposed  of.  The  opposition,  seeking 
delay,  objected.  Palmer  moved  as  a  substitute  that  the 
Assembly  be  at  recess.  The  vote  was  taken  on  Palmer's 
substitute  motion.  The  substitute  motion  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  29  to  41. 148  The  opposition  had  lost  again. 
Bohnett's  motion  that  the  hour  of  recess  be  extended 
until  the  bill  should  be  disposed  of,  prevailed. 

The  opposition's  next  move  was  a  motion  to  amend 
the  bill.  It  was  the  last  straw  that  broke  the  patience 
of  the  bill's  supporters.  Bohnett  moved  the  previous 


147  Reconsideration  was  granted  by  the  following  vote: 
For  reconsideration — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bohnett,  Bush,  Can- 
epa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Fer- 
guson, Flnnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Inman, 
Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.!  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Mc- 
Donald, Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Peairs,  Richardson, 
Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Walsh, 
Weisel,  Woodley,  Wyllie  and  Young— 43. 

Against  reconsideration — Alexander,  Bagby,  Bowman,  Bradford, 
Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Ford, 
Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Johnson,  Geo.  H.;  Killingsworth, 
Libby,  Murray,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmitt,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simp- 
son, Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Weldon,  and  White — 30. 

1*8  The  vote  by  which  Palmer's  substitute  motion  was  lost 
was: 

For  recess  and  for  delay — Alexander,  Bagby,  Bowman,  Bradford, 
Brown,  Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Ford, 
Griffin,  Guiberson,  Hayes,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Killingsworth,  Libby, 
Murray,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmitt,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson, 
Stuckenbruck.  Wall,  Walsh,  Weldon,  and  White — 29. 

Against  recess  and  against  delay — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bohnett, 
Bush,  Canepa,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell, 
Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Guill, 
Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Kingsley, 
Kuck,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Peairs,  Rob- 
erts, HVMTI,  Scott,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Weisel,  Wood- 
ley,  Wyllie,  and  Yeung — 41. 


Conservation  Bill  Passes  Assembly      163 

question.  This  brought  the  question  of  amendment  to 
immediate  vote.  The  motion  was  defeated.  The  way 
was  clear  for  the  final  vote  on  the  bill. 

Maneuvering  for  delay,  the  opposition  started  fur- 
ther debate.  Every  member  present  had  decided  how 
he  would  vote.  Further  debate  was  useless.  Johnston 
moved  the  previous  question.  The  opposition  contested 
this  motion,  but  the  Assembly  was  weary  of  delaying 
tactics,  and  the  previous  question,  by  a  vote  of  45  to 
18,1*9  was  ordered.  This  brought  the  opposition  dan- 
gerously near  to  final  vote  on  the  bill. 

As  soon  as  the  vote  on  the  previous  question  was 
announced,  however,  Killingsworth  moved  that  the  As- 
sembly adjourn.  Young,  because  of  the  vote  on  the 
previous  question,  ruled  Killingsworth  out  of  order. 
George  H.  Johnson  made  a  point  of  order  that  a  two- 
thirds  vote  was  necessary  to  order  the  previous  ques- 
tion. Young  ruled  the  point  not  well  taken. 

This  brought  the  Assembly  to  the  vote  on  the  bill. 
The  measure  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  44  to  30.150 

149  The  vote  on  Johnston's  motion  for  the  previous  question 
was: 

For  the  motion — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bohnett,  Bush,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons, 
Parwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates, 
Green,  Guill,  Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson, 
Kingsley,  Kuck,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Nolan, 
Peairs,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Tulloch, 
Walsh,  Weisel,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  Young — 45. 

Against  the  motion — Alexander,  Bagby,  Bowman,  Collins, 
Dower,  Ford,  Griffin,  Killingsworth,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmitt, 
Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Weldon,  and 
White— 18. 

iso  The  vote  by  which  the  Conservation  bill  finally  passed  the 
Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bush, 
Canepa,  Cary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell, 
Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder, 
Green,  Hinkle,  Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson. 
Kingsley,  Kuck,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Nolan, 


164      Conservation  Bill  Passes  Assembly 

After  two  months  of  practically  continuous  fighting 
the  supporters  of  the  bill  had  succeeded  in  getting  it 
through  one  House  of  the  Legislature.  The  Legisla- 
ture was  to  be  in  session  for  ten  days  longer. 


Peairs,  Roberts,   Ryan,    Scott,    Strine,    Sutherland,   Tulloch,   Walsh, 
Weisel,   Woodley,   Wyllie,   and   Young — 44. 

Against  the  bill — Alexander,  Bagby,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown, 
Byrnes,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Ford,  Grlffln, 
Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Killingsworth,  Mur- 
ray, Palmer,  Polsley,  Schmltt,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater, 
Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Weldon,  and  White — 30. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
CONSERVATION  BILL  IN  SENATE. 

The  Conservation  bill  reached  the  Senate  on  the  day 
of  its  passage  in  the  Assembly,  Saturday,  May  3.  But 
instead  of  being  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Irrigation, 
where  it  belonged,  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Drainage,  Swamp  and  Overflowed  Lands.  Before  the 
mistake  could  be  corrected,  the  Senate  had  adjourned 
for  the  day.  As  a  result,  the  bill  was  not  recalled 
from  the  Committee  on  Drainage,  Swamp  and  Over- 
flowed Lands  and  sent  to  the  proper  committee  until 
Monday,  May  5.  In  this  way,  two  valuable  days  were 
lost,  at  a  time  when  every  moment  counted. 

Further  delay  was  played  for  by  the  opposition 
lobby,  which  requested  of  Senator  Mott,  chairman  of 
the  Irrigation  Committee,  that  the  bill  be  made  subject 
of  a  public  hearing  on  Tuesday  night,  May  6. 

Mott  appreciated  the  situation  fully.  The  bill  had 
been  discussed  and  discussed  again  before  his  commit- 
tee. He  refused  to  make  further  discussion  pretext 
for  delay.  But  he  consented  to  a  hearing  for  that 
(Monday)  evening. 

The  committee  met  at  8  o'clock.  At  that  time  the 
Legislature  was  in  the  confusion  of  the  "jam"  of  the 
closing  hours  of  the  session.181  The  committee  had 
scarcely  begun  its  work  when,  under  a  call  of  the  Sen- 

151  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 


166  Conservation  Bill  in  Senate 

ate,  its  members  were  arrested  by  the  sergeant-at-arms 
and  taken  to  the  Senate  Chamber.  Before  leaving  the 
committee  room,  however,  they  agreed  to  return  after 
the  Senate  had  adjourned  and  continue  the  hearing. 

They  got  back  to  the  committee  room  at  12:40  a.  m. 
Tuesday  morning.  There  were  present  Senators  Mott, 
Anderson  and  Cartwright.  The  arguments  against  the 
bill,  heard  so  many  times  before,  were  repeated.  Cart- 
wright  stated  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  later,  that  the 
argument  of  the  opposition  that  night  converted  him 
to  the  bill.  At  any  rate,  Cartwright  that  morning  voted 
with  Mott  and  Anderson  to  return  the  bill  to  the  Sen- 
ate with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed.  Ander- 
son, however,  reserved  the  right  to  oppose  the  bill  on 
the  Senate  floor.  But  the  Conservationists  had  gained 
an  important  point.  They  had  got  the  bill  out  of  one 
of  the  two  Senate  committees  which  in  the  regular 
course  of  legislative  business  must  pass  upon  it.  As 
the  measure  carried  an  appropriation  it  still  had  to  be 
acted  upon  by  the  Senate  Finance  Committee. 

The  Finance  Committee  did  not  meet  until  midnight, 
May  7.  The  committee  went  into  executive  session.152 
In  executive  session  it  cut  the  appropriation  for  the 
work  of  the  Conservation  Commission  from  $75,000  a 
year  to  $37,500.153  The  Assembly  Ways  and  Means 


152  Such  executive  sessions  will  one  day  be  regarded  as  highly 
as    the    bar-room    caucuses   of    the    old    convention   days    are    now. 
There  is    no   good   reason   why   the   public   should   not  know   what 
takes   place   in   committee    meetings,    especially  when    such   aston- 
ishing action   is   taken  as   that  of   the   Senate  Finance   Committee 
on  the  Conservation  bill. 

153  It   is    significant   to    note   that   opponents    of    the    Conserva- 
tion  bill   now   urge   that   the   measure   is   impractical,   because    the 
appropriation  which   it  carries   is   too   small  to  permit  of  effective 
work. 


Conservation  Bill  in  Senate  167 

Committee  had  approved  the  original  appropriation, 
and  the  Assembly  had  also.  The  Senate  Finance  Com- 
mittee, behind  locked  doors,  the  public  excluded,  cut 
the  appropriation  one-half.  That,  however,  was  within 
its  province. 

But  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  went  further. 
It  decided,  in  that  executive  session,  to  recommend 
that  the  bill  be  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 
This  action  was  quite  out  of  the  ordinary.  The  Con- 
servationists determined  to  resist  this  re-reference  rec- 
ommendation. 

Kehoe  was  in  charge  of  the  bill,  and  all  of  the 
morning  of  May  8  he  waited  for  the  committee's  report. 
Shortly  before  noon  Kehoe  had  occasion  to  step  from 
the  room.  During  his  brief  absence  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee's report  on  the  bill  came  in.  On  Kehoe's  return 
to  the  Senate  Chamber  he  found  that  the  report  had 
been  accepted  and  the  bill  sent  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. 

Kehoe  attempted  to  have  the  bill  recalled  from  the 
Judiciary  Committee.  Curtin  and  Wright  led  the  oppo- 
sition to  Kehoe's  move. 

The  opposition  contended  that  the  bill  contained 
unconstitutional  provisions,  which  required  revision'  at 
the  hands  of  the  Judiciary  Committee.  The  discussion 
became  spirited.  But  the  bill  was  in  the  end  left  with 
the  committee,  on  the  understanding,  however,  that  the 
committee  was  to  return  the  measure  to  the  Senate  not 
later  than  the  following  day,  Friday. 

Arrangement  was  made  for  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee to  meet  immediately  after  Senate  adjournment 
Thursday  night.  But  the  Senate  did  not  adjourn  until 


168  Conservation  Bill  in  Senate 

midnight.  The  members  were  worn  out.  Senator 
Gates,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  announced 
no  meeting  would  be  held  that  night,  but  that  the 
committee  would  assemble  at  8:30  Friday  morning.  It 
was  10  o'clock  the  following  morning,  however,  before 
a  quorum  of  the  committee  got  together.  The  com- 
mittee had  not  made  much  progress  before  fhe  Senate 
convened.  The  committee  accordingly  adjourned  until 
the  Senate's  noon  recess.  At  that  hour  it  was  imprac- 
tical for  the  committee  to  meet.  The  committee  did 
not  get  together  until  7:30  that  evening. 

It  will  be  remembered,  the  bill  had  been  left  with 
the  committee  on  the  understanding  that  it  was  to  be 
returned  to  the  Senate  that  day. 

Francis  J.  Heney  and  James  F.  Farraher,  on  behalf 
of  the  bill,  attended  the  Judiciary  Committee  hearing. 
Senators  Curtin  and  Wright  were  present  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  proceedings.  Heney  and  Farraher 
were  prepared  to  resist  any  attempt  to  amend  the  bill 
into  ineffectiveness. 

The  changes  proposed  were  many  of  them  trivial, 
although  much  time  was  consumed  in  discussing  them. 
The  question  was  discussed  at  some  length,  for  exam- 
ple, whether  the  bill  should  read  "by  eminent  domain 
proceedings"  or  "through  eminent  domain  proceedings." 
It  was  finally  decided  to  make  it  "by  or  through  emi- 
nent domain  proceedings." 

The  progress  was  slow.  By  midnight  only  about 
half  the  bill  had  been  covered.  The  committee  ad- 
journed at  that  hour  until  the  following  morning — 
Saturday.  The  Legislature  was  to  adjourn  on  Mon- 


Conservation  Bill  in  Senate  169 

day  at  noon.  The  committee  met  on  Saturday  morn- 
ing, however,  and  by  11:30  had  finished  with  the  bill. 

Some  fifty  amendments,  running  all  through  the 
measure,  had  been  decided  upon.  Heney  and  Farraher 
had  fought  successfully  every  weakening  amendment 
proposed.  A  majority  of  the  committee  was  for  the 
measure,  which  meant  that  it  would  be  sent  back  to 
the  Senate.  All  that  the  opposition  to  the  bill  had 
gained  was  delay.  And  delay  was  important. 

Ordinarily  it  would  have  taken  hours  to  get  the 
amended  bill  into  shape  for  the  Senate  and  the  printer. 
But  a  force  was  at  work  upon  which  the  opponents  of 
the  measure  had  not  counted.  Ray  Freeman,  clerk  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Irrigation,  with  assistants, 
had  not,  on  Friday  night,  left  the  Capitol  until  the 
amendments  adopted  that  night  had  been  typed,  ready 
for  preparing  the  bill  for  the  printer.  When  the  com- 
mittee was  at  work  on  Saturday  morning,  these  clerks 
had  kept  at  their  labor.  The  result  was,  that  a  few 
minutes  after  the  committee  had  adjourned,  the  bill 
was  ready  for  presentation  in  the  Senate. 

The  Senate  that  afternoon  adopted  the  amendments 
which  the  Judiciary  Committee  had  recommended. 

The  amendment  proposed  by  the  Senate  Finance 
Committee,  reducing  the  funds  available  for  the  work 
of  the  commission  from  $75,000  a  year  to  $37,500,  was 
rejected  for  one  making  even  greater  reduction. 

Senator  Strobridge,  chairman  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee, offered  an  amendment  which  reduced  the  appro- 
priation to  $25,000  a  year.  This  amendment  was 
adopted.  The  amended  bill  was  then,  for  the  sixth 
time,  sent  to  the  printer. 


170  Conservation  Bill  in  Senate 

The  measure  got  back  from  the  printer  at  11:30 
p.  m.  Saturday  night.  This  was  too  late  to  permit  of 
the  Senate  acting  upon  it  before  Sunday.  The  Legis- 
lature was  to  adjourn  at  Monday  noon.  The  measure 
was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  taken  up  by  the  Senate 
until  3:30  p.  m.  Sunday,  twenty  hours  before  the  hour 
set  for  adjournment. 

When  the  measure  came  up  at  that  late  hour  for 
final  passage,  Senator  Wright  offered  an  amendment, 
the  effect  of  which  would  have  been  to  permit  any  one 
to  continue  to  appropriate  water  under  the  old  law 
until  the  Water  Commission  had  examined  and  passed 
upon  the  particular  stream  upon  which  the  filing  was 
made.154  The  first  Wright  amendment — he  made  two 
attempts  to  amend  the  bill — was  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  13  to  18.155 

Senator  Wright  then  offered  his  second  amend- 
ment. This  time  Wright  moved  to  amend  by  striking 
out  Sections  26,  27  and  28.  The  twelve  members  who 
had  supported  Wright's  first  amendment  again  sup- 
ported him.  But  the  second  Wright  amendment  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  13  to  21.1M 

154  This  particular  amendment  read:  "(Amend)  by  a  new 
paragraph  after  line  26,  page  30,  to  read  as  follows:  'Nothing  In 
this  Act  shall  prevent  or  be  construed  to  prevent,  any  person, 
firm,  or  corporation,  from  making  an  appropriation  under  the 
provisions  of  Division  II,  Part  IV,  Chapter  VIII  of  the  Civil 
Code,  of  any  unappropriated  water  in  any  stream,  lake,  or  other 
body  of  water,  until  the  State  Water  Commission  shall  have  in- 
vestigated such  stream,  lake,  or  other  body  of  water,  and  deter- 
mined by  its  findings  as  herein  provided  the  unappropriated 
rights  in  such  stream,  lake,  or  other  body  of  water.'  " 

The  examination  of  all  the  streams  of  the  State  will  probably 
take  some  years.  During  that  period  any  one  who  could  get  to  a 
stream  before  the  Commission  could  file  under  the  old  law  and 
be  exempt  from  the  provisions  of  the  Conservation  Act. 

153  The  votes  on  the  two  Wright  amendments  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  real  test  votes  in  the  Senate  on  the  Conservation 
Act.  Had  the  bill  been  amended  at  that  late  hour,  requiring 


Conservation  Bill  in  Senate  171 

The  defeat  of  Wright's  amendments  cleared  the  way 
for  the  vote  on  the  bill.  Only  six  members  voted 
against  the  measure.  Twenty-eight  voted  for  it.156 

The  bill  had  passed  both  Houses,  but  it  had  not 
passed  the  Legislature.  It  could  not  be  sent  to  the 
Governor  until  the  Senate's  amendments  had  been  dis- 
posed of.  If  the  Assembly  failed  to  concur  in  any  one 
of  the  amendments,  the  bill  would  be  returned  to  the 
Senate.  This  would  give  opportunity  for  further  de- 
bate and  delay.  If  the  Senate  failed  to  recede  from 
the  rejected  amendment,  then  the  bill  would  be  thrown 
into  a  Conference,  and  later,  probably  into  a  Free  Con- 
ference Committee.  And  the  hour  of  adjournment  was 
less  than  twenty  hours  away.  Failure  of  the  Assembly 
to  concur  in  the  Senate  amendments  would  in  all  prob- 
ability result  in  the  bill's  defeat.  The  Conservationists 

re-printing,  at  a  time  when  the  State  Printing  office  was  con- 
gested with  the  work  which  both  Senate  and  Assembly  were 
thrusting  upon  it,  its  passage  would  have  been  very  doubtful. 
It  will  be  noted  that  the  same  thirteen  members  voted  for  both 
amendments. 

The  vote  on   the  first  Wright  amendment  was: 
For     the     Wright     amendment — Anderson,     Birdsall,     Boynton, 
Breed,  Campbell,  Cartwright.  Cohn,  Curtin,  Juilliard,  Owens,  San- 
ford,    Shanahan,    and   Wright — 13. 

Against  the  Wright  amendment — Benson,   Brown,   Bryant,   But- 
ler,   Carr,  .Cogswell,    Finn,    Flint,    Gates,    Gerdes,    Hewitt,    Jones, 
Kehoe,    Larkins,    Lyon,    Strobridge,    Thompson,    and    Tyrrell — 18. 
The  vote  on   the  second  Wright  amendment  was: 
For     the     Wright     amendment — Anderson,     Birdsall,     Boynton, 
Breed,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Juilliard,  Owens,  San- 
ford,   Shanahan,  and  Wright — 13. 

Against  the  Wright  amendment — Beban,  Benson,  Brown, 
Bryant,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Jones, 
Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Regan,  Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
and  Tyrrell — 21. 

i5«  The  vote  by  which  the  Conservation  bill  passed  the  Senate 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Breed,  Brown, 
Bryant,  Butler,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates, 
Gerdes,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon, 
Mott,  Regan.  Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 28. 

Against  the  bill — Anderson,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Owens,  Sanford,  and 
Wright— 6. 


172  Conservation  Bill  in  Senate 

in  the  Assembly  found  themselves  in  a  position  where 
they  were  obliged  to  accept  the  Senate  amendments, 
whether  they  liked  them  or  not,  or  see  their  bill 
defeated. 

The  amendments  came  up  in  the  Assembly  for  con- 
currence shortly  before  nine  o'clock  Sunday  night. 
There  were  at  the  time  the  greatest  excitement  and 
confusion  in  the  Chamber.  The  members  had  been 
without  sleep ;  since  nine  o'clock  that  morning  they 
had  been  passing  bills  as  fast  as  the  roll  could  be 
called.  Many  were  getting  their  effects  ready  to  leave 
the  building. 

Announcement  of  the  question  of  concurring  in  the 
Senate  amendments  to  the  Conservation  bill  did  not 
seem  to  arouse  the  opponents  of  the  measure.  Several 
of  them  failed  to  answer  when  their  names  were  called. 
Finally,  in  the  midst  of  the  roll-call,  the  question  was 
asked  from  the  floor :  "What  are  we  voting  on  ?"  Boh- 
nett,  who  was  in  the  chair,  again  announced  the  ques- 
tion,157 and  the  roll-call  proceeded.  The  vote  was  an- 
nounced as  forty-one  voting  for  concurrence  in  the  Sen- 
ate amendments  and  ten  against.158 

The  greatest  confusion  followed.     Several  opponents 

157  During    this    roll    call    Finnegan    of    Nevada    City,    a   strong 
supporter  of   the  Conservation  bill,   was  called  out  of  the  Assem- 
bly Chamber.     Finnegan,   had  he  been  permitted  to  remain   in  the 
Chamber,  would  have  voted  for  concurrence. 

158  The  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  concurred  in  the   Senate 
amendments  to   the   Conservation  bill  was: 

For  the  amendment — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Bush,  Gary,  Chandler, 
Clark.  Wm.  C. ;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Ellis,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Fish, 
Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Hinkle,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ; 
Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Moor- 
house,  Mouser,  Palmer,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Slater,  Smith, 
Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Walsh,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Toung— 41. 

Against  the  amendments — Bagby,  Brown,  Collins,  Cram,  Dower, 
Griffin,  Guill,  Murray,  Shannon,  and  Simpson — 10. 


Conservation  Bill  in  Senate  173 

of  the  measure  were  on  their  feet  demanding  recog- 
nition. Killings  worth,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  oppo- 
sition, had  voted  for  concurrence.  He  wanted  his  vote 
changed,  but  the  roll-call  had  already  been  announced. 
George  H.  Johnson  moved  that  the  vote  by  which  the 
Assembly  had  concurred  in  the  amendments  be  re- 
considered. But  the  point  of  order  was  raised  against 
him,  that  a  motion  to  reconsider  final  action  on  a  bill 
could  not,  under  the  rules,  be  made  on  the  day  pre- 
ceding final  adjournment.  Bohnett,  presiding,  ruled 
the  point  well  taken.  Johnson  appealed  from  the 
Speaker's  decision,  but  the  Assembly  sustained  Bohnett. 
The  Conservation  bill  had  finally  passed  the  Legisla- 
ture.159 

Governor  Johnson,  in  spite  of  efforts  to  prevent 
him,  signed  the  bill. 

But  there  is  too  much  at  stake  for  large  interests 
to  permit  of  anything  being  left  undone  to  defeat  this 
measure.  The  referendum  has  been  invoked  against  it. 
The  People  will  be  called  upon  in  November,  1914,  to 
say  whether  this  important  Act  of  the  1913  Legislature 
shall  go  into  effect.  Until  then  its  operation  has  been 
suspended. 


159  On  the  day  following — Monday,  the  day  of  adjournment — an 
attempt  was  made  to  discredit  the  roll  call  by  which  the  Assem- 
bly had  concurred  in  the  Senate  amendments.  But  this  failed. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  DREDGE-MINING  BILL. 

The  1913  Legislature  attempted  passage  of  a  law 
providing  State  regulation  of  gold  dredging.  The 
measure  was  introduced  by  Kehoe  of  Humboldt.  It 
was  known  as  Senate  Bill  713.  From  the  moment  of 
its  introduction,  the  measure  met  the  determined  op- 
position of  forces  both  within  and  without  the  Legis- 
lature. The  bill  was  finally  defeated  in  the  Senate. 

Dredge  mining  as  at  present  conducted  in  various 
parts  of  the  State  has  turned  hundreds  of  acres  of 
soil,  once  capable  of  sustaining  human  life,  into  hide- 
ous wastes  of  barren  cobble  piles.  The  dredgers  win- 
now the  gold  from  every  cubic  foot  of  the  soil  from 
surface  to  bedrock.  By  the  process  now  followed,  the 
dredger  as  it  passes  turns  the  mass  of  earth  and  cob- 
bles over,  leaving  the  soil  at  the  bottom  and  the  cobble- 
stones on  top.160 

ieo  This  waste  of  soil  Is  recognized  to  be  unnecessary.  At 
slightly  additional  cost,  the  soil  could  be  left  after  dredging  very 
much  as  it  was  before.  In  fact,  land  has — according  to  the 
Sacramento  Bee,  whose  editors  have  followed  gold  dredging  ever 
since  the  industry  was  started — been  practically  dredged  without 
injuring  it  for  agricultural  purposes. 

"The  first  large  gold  dredger  on  the  American  river,"  says 
The  Bee  (Feb.  25,  1913),  "was  that  of  the  Ashburton  Company, 
operating  on  Sailor  Bar  just  above  the  Falroaks  bridge,  and 
eventually  destroyed  by  fire.  That  machine  was  so  constructed 
and  operated  that  it  dumped  the  cobbles  and  boulders  to  the 
bottom  of  the  pit  in  which  it  floated,  and  deposited  the  fine  soil 
on  top,  thus  leaving  the  land  worked  over  very  much  as  in  its 
original  condition,  and  practically  as  level  as  before. 

"But  since  that  time  the  dredges  have  so  been  built  and 
operated  as  to  deposit  the  fine  material  on  the  bottom,  and  pile 
the  cobbles  and  gravel  on  top,  in  windrows  twenty-five  or  even 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      175 

At  the  1905  session  of  the  Legislature  a  strong  effort 
was  made  to  secure  legislation  for  the  conservation  of 
agricultural  land  regardless  of  its  immediate  value  for 
dredge-mining  purposes.  The  measure  failed  to  become 
a  law.  It  was  predicted  by  the  supporters  of  the 
measure,  however,  that  a  similar  bill  would  to  a  cer- 
tainty pass  the  1907  Legislature.  But  no  such  action 
was  taken  at  the  1907  session. 

Eight  years  passed  after  the  1905  session  before 
the  matter  was  again  taken  up.  Then  the  Kehoe  bill 
was,  at  the  1913  session,  introduced. 

The  measure  provided  that  before  land  could  be 
dredged  for  gold,161  written  application  to  do  such 

thirty  feet  high,  thus  reversing  the  natural  conditions  and  making 
subsequent  use  of  the  land  for  farming  or  fruit  growing  practic- 
ally impossible.  The  exceptions  are  exceedingly  rare,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Leggett  vineyard  at  Oroville,  but  even  in  that  in- 
stance the  results  of  replanting  have  not  been  wholly  satisfactory. 
"Ordinarily,  the  cost  of  hauling  away  cobbles,  or  even  of  level- 
ing and  replanting  dredged  land,  would  be  hundreds  of  dollars  an 
acre,  and  practically  prohibitory." 

lei  Francis  J.  Heney,  at  the  time  the  Dredge  Mining  bill  was 
under  consideration  in  the  State  Senate,  gave  out  the  following 
interview  regarding  the  principle  under  which  the  measure  was 
drawn,  and  its  provisions: 

"I  have  read  the  Dredger  bill  which"  has  been  Introduced  in 
the  present  session  of  the  Legislature  of  California,  and  I  heartily 
approve  of  the  principle  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  the  bill 
seems  to  be  drawn  so  as  to  accomplish  the  operation  of  that 
principle. 

"The  highest  purpose  to  which  land  can  be  put  Is,  of  course, 
the  production  of  food  supplies  for  the  people.  Food  is  the  first 
essential  for  human  existence  and  the  high  cost  of  living  in  this 
country  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  we  are  already  falling  be- 
hind in  the  production  of  food  supplies.  It  is  a  well  known  fact 
that  the  United  States  is  now  producing  less  food  per  cultivated 
acre  than  any  country  in  the  world,  except  Russia.  This  is  due 
to  the  wasteful  and  reckless  use  of  our  agricultural  lands,  by  the 
crude  methods  of  the  early  settlers  and  of  some  of  their  de- 
scendants and  successors,  who  scorn  the  suggestion  that  farming 
could  be  improved  by  scientific  methods.  A  growing  necessity 
for  cheaper  food  supplies  is  causing  a  strong  movement  through- 
out the  nation  in  favor  of  more  scientific  and  more  economical 
use  of  our  farming  lands. 

"Certain  portions  of  Northern  China  once  supported  a  dense 
population  where  now  the  entire  country  is  a  desert.  The  pres- 
ent condition  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  people  of  former  genera- 


176      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

dredging  should  be  made  to  the  State  Water  Commis- 
sion. 

The  applicant  was  required  to  show  the  location  of 
the  proposed  operation,  the  amount  and  character  of 
the  soil  to  be  dredged,  whether  it  had  ever  been  culti- 
vated, and  the  approximate  value  of  the  last  crop  taken 
from  it;  whether,  in  the  opinion  of  the  applicant  the  soil 
were  more  valuable  for  agriculture  than  for  dredging, 
and,  if  so,  whether,  in  the  opinion  of  the  applicant,  the 
soil  after  the  dredging  operations  could  be  restored  to 
a  condition  of  usefulness  and  fertility  for  agricultural 
purposes  equal  to  its  condition  at  the  time  of  the  appli- 
cation. 

The  Water  Commission,  on  receiving  such  an  appli- 
cation, was  required  within  thirty  days  to  have  the  soil 


tions  cut  the  timber  and  underbrush  from  the  mountain  sides 
for  fuel  and  other  purposes,  with  reckless  disregard  of  the  con- 
sequences to  the  agricultural  lands  lying  below. 

"The  Northern  Sacramento  Valley  at  one  time  produced  enor- 
mous crops  of  wheat  but  the  yield  per  acre  decreased  year  by 
year  on  account  of  the  unscientific  method  of  production  and 
use  of  the  land. 

"That  deterioration  in  the  quality  of  the  land  has  a  present 
effect  upon  the  number  of  people  who  can  be  supported  by  agri- 
cultural pursuits  upon  the  land  in  that  valley.  It  is  needless  to 
argue  that  what  California  needs  today  is  more  population  of  the 
right  sort  and  particularly  of  the  kind  which  can  and  will  sup- 
port itself  upon  small  farms.  If  to  deteriorate  the  quality  of  our 
farming  lands  by  reckless  and  unscientific  methods  of  production 
is  contrary  to  the  present  and  future  welfare  of  the  State,  what 
must  be  said  of  any  industry  or  enterprise  which  permanently 
destroys  agricultural  lands,  for  the  sake  of  securing  an  amount 
of  gold  which  is  less  than  the  value  of  the  agricultural  products 
of  the  same  land  for  a  very  limited  period  of  time?  It  Is  a 
suicidal  policy  and  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by  any  enlightened 
civilization. 

"I  have  personally  seen  much  of  the  fruit  land  which  is  being 
destroyed  by  dredging  in  the  Northern  Sacramento  Valley.  One 
of  the  most  striking  examples  of  the  destructive  character  of  this 
dredging  was  furnished  by  the  land  which  constituted  the  Na- 
tomas  Vineyard.  It  is  said  to  have  been  the  second  largest  pro- 
ducer in  the  State  at  the  time  it  was  taken  over  by  the  dredging 
company.  The  vines  were  all  turned  up  and  the  former  vineyard 
now  consists  of  a  solid  mass  of  cobble  stones  about  twenty  feet 
in  height.  It  is  a  sickening  sight  to  any  one  who  recognizes  the 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      177 

examined.  Within  thirty  days  after  such  examination 
the  commission  was  required  to  give  the  applicant  a 
hearing,  and  within  thirty  days  thereafter  render  a  de- 
cision. 

The  measure  provided  that  the  Commission  should : 

(1)  If  the  land  were  found  to  be  more  valuable  for 
dredging  than  for  agricultural  purposes,  grant  the  ap- 
plication, and  issue  a  license  for  such  dredging. 

(2)  If  the  land  were  found  to  be  more  valuable  for 
agricultural  purposes  than  for  mining,  but  that  the  soil 
could  be  restored  after  such  dredging  operations  to  a 
condition  of  usefulness  and  fertility  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses equal  to  its  condition  at  the  time  of  the  filing  of 
the  application,  the  Commission  could  grant  the  petition 
and  the  license  to  dredge. 

(3)  If  the  soil  were  found  to  be  more  valuable  for 


fact  that  posterity  has  some  rights  which  the  present  generation 
ought  to  respect  and  protect. 

"Unfortunately,  gold  dredging  is  only  conducted  on  river  bot- 
tom lands  because  the  gold  is  only  found  in  paying  quantities  in 
these  old  river  beds  which  are  covered  with  soil.  It  probably 
took  millions  of  years  for  nature  to  create  and  deposit  this  soil, 
which  man  destroys  permanently,  from  every  practical  stand- 
point, in  a  few  years,  or  even  months. 

"I  am  informed  that  patents  exist  of  dredging  machines  which 
will  reverse  the  present  process  and  redeposit  the  cobble  stones 
on  the  bottom  and  the  soil  on  top,  but  that  this  kind  of  machin- 
ery is  not  used  by  the  people  who  are  doing  the  dredging  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  expense  of  extracting  the  gold  would 
thereby  be  increased  a  few  cents  and  the  profit  of  the  owners 
proportionately  decreasd. 

"The  dredging  industry  is  unprofitable  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, from  every  standpoint,  as  at  present  conducted.  True,  it 
furnishes  employment  to  a  few  hundreds  of  men  but  this  fact 
is  more  than  offset  by  the  permanent  Injury  to  the  productive 
capacity  of  the  State,  and  especially  so  when  you  consider  the 
fact  that  most  of  the  dredging  is  now  being  conducted  by  ab- 
sentee landlords  and  that  the  gold  which  is  taken  out  of  the  soil 
finds  its  way  into  the  pockets  of  Eastern  owners  instead  of  re- 
maining in  California  and  being  invested  there  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  other  resources  of  the  State. 

"The  proposed  dredger  legislation  ought,  by  all  means,  to  be 
enacted  by  the  Legislature.  It  is  a  wise  and  sound  policy  for 
the  State  of  California  to  adopt." 


178      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

agriculture  than  for  dredging,  then  the  application,  un- 
less provision  were  made  for  restoration  of  the  land  as 
described  above,  had  to  be  denied. 

In  the  event  of  the  Commission's  determining  the 
soil  to  be  more  valuable  for  agricultural  than  for 
dredging  purposes,  but  should  decide  to  issue  a  dredging 
permit  on  condition  that  the  soil  be  restored,  the  meas- 
ure provided  that  the  permit  set  forth  as  the  conditions 
under  which  it  was  granted: 

(1)  That  the  soil  should  be  restored  to  a  condition 
of  agricultural  usefulness  equal  to  that  before  the  dredg- 
ing operations. 

(2)  That  if  the  applicant  failed  or  refused  to  restore 
the  soil,  the  permit  could  be  revoked,  and  such  other 
penalties  imposed  as  the  law  provided. 

The  Commission,  in  determining  the  relative  value 
of  the  soil  for  agricultural  and  for  dredging  purposes, 
was  not  limited  to  consideration  of  the  annual  product 
of  the  soil  alone,  but  was  required  to  take  into  consid- 
eration the  future  and  natural  continued  use  of  the  soil 
for  agricultural  purposes. 

Kehoe,  in  his  efforts  to  give  the  principle  of  soil 
conservation  expression  in  law,  had  the  support  of  such 
men  as  Congressman  William  Kent;162  former  Governor 

162  "It  is  the  first  principle  underlying  common  law,"  said 
Congressman  Kent,  "that  a  man  may  not  use  his  property  to 
the  damage  of  another.  It  is  upon  this  broad  principle  that  the 
bill  to  restrain  destruction  of  arable  land  by  dredging  for  gold 
was  drawn. 

"If  we  have  any  regard  for  history,  If  we  have  any  regard 
whatever  for  the  struggles  of  the  past  or  the  sacrifices  made  by 
our  predecessors  in  order  that  our  lives  may  be  better  and  hap- 
pier, we  must  realize  that  the  only  recognition  in  our  power  to 
accord  to  those  who  have  gone  before,  is  to  so  act  in  the  brief 
trusteeship  of  our  existence  that  those  coming  after  may  find  tha 
world  a  better  place  to  live  in. 

"It  is  obvious  to  any  one  who  has  given  the  matter  thought 
that  the  destruction  of  arable  land  is,  in  this  view  of  our  duty 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      179 

George  C.  Pardee ;  Francis  J.  Heney,  the  San  Francisco 
graft  prosecutor,  and  Charles  K.  McClatchy,  of  the 
Sacramento  Bee,  who  is  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
gold  dredging  conditions  in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 
The  directors  of  the  Sacramento  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
fully  informed  of  dredge-mining  operations,  which  are 
going  on  at  Sacramento's  doors,  adopted  resolutions 
supporting  the  bill. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  measure  had  the  determined 
opposition  of  the  dredge-mining  companies,  and  their 
agents  in  and  out  of  the  Legislature.  Their  opposition 
was  very  effective.  Chambers  of  Commerce  the  State 
over  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the  proposed  act; 
newspapers  and  mining  publications  declared  against  it; 
bankers  who  had  dredge-mining  securities  on  their  hands 
joined  in  the  expression  of  disapproval. 

The  first  line  of  attack  was  to  convince  Kehoe  there 
was  no  good  reason  why  the  measure  should  be 


to  those  coming  after  us,  the  ultimate  crime.  If  it  had  so  hap- 
pened that  any  large  proportion  of  the  arable  areas  of  the  world 
had  been  underlaid  with  gold  and  the  sort  of  destruction  had 
been  going  on  through  the  centuries  that  is  now  evidenced  in  the 
finest  portions  of  the  Sacramento  Valley,  we,  in  our  time,  asking 
for  bread  would  be  literally  given  a  stone. 

"The  bill  is  not  a  bill  to  destroy  the  entirely  legitimate  busi- 
ness of  dredging  for  gold.  It  merely  calls  for  a  proper  replace- 
ment of  arable  conditions.  If  the  profits  of  the  dredging  do  not 
Justify  replacing  the  soil  in  as  good  a  condition  as-  it  was  prior 
to  dredging,  then  the  bill  would  work  an  estoppel  on  the  pre- 
tended right  of  the  individual  to  destroy  the  assets  of  the  State 
of  California  and  to  so  use  his  property  that  the  unborn  genera- 
tion will  be  damaged  by  such  use. 

"It  seems  idle  to  contend  that  rock  piles  that  cannot  be  cul- 
tivated are  as  valuable  in  the  production  of  food  as  the  orchards 
and  vineyards  turned  up  to  create  those  rock  piles.  It  is  time 
that  the  State  of  California  looked  after  the  continuing  interests 
of  its  own  people  and  if  it  shall  be  shown  that  dredging  for  gold, 
under  existing  conditions,  does  in  some  localities  result  in  per- 
manent destruction  and  waste,  it  is  time  that  the  State  should 
exercise  its  power." 


180      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

passed.168  It  was  represented  to  him  that  the  acreage 
profitable  for  dredge-mining  is  limited;  that  compara- 
tively little  of  it  is  fit  for  agricultural  purposes;  that  it 
could  all  be  sacrificed  without  the  State  suffering  ma- 
terial loss. 

The  figures  presented  Kehoe  in  support  of  these  con- 
tentions were  definite  and  convincing.  S.  L.  G.  Knox, 
vice-president  and  general  manager  of  Natomas  Con- 
solidated of  California,  extensively  engaged  in  dredge- 
mining,  furnished  Kehoe  what  purported  to  be  a  detailed 
statement  of  all  the  available  land  fit  for  profitable  gold 
dredging,  in  California.  The  statement  showed  only 
10,885  acres  capable  of  being  profitably  dredged.164 
Knox  claimed  that  not  above  3,500  acres  of  it  were  fit 
for  agricultural  purposes. 

163  The   efforts   made   to   get   Kehoe's   ear  were  many   of  them 
amusing.     At   the   time   of   the  adjournment  for   the  constitutional 
recess,    Kehoe   was   to   have   left   San   Francisco   for   Eureka   on   a 
certain    steamer.     By    a    strange    coincidence    a    representative    of 
the  Natomas   Consolidated   Dredge   Mining   Company   of   California 
took   the   same   boat.     Kehoe    was    delayed,    however,   and    did   not 
sail  for  Eureka  until  the  day  following. 

Elaborate  investigation  was  made  into  Kehoe's  record  and 
affairs.  His  associates  were  hunted  out,  and  every  possible  in- 
fluence brought  to  bear  upon  him  to  influence  him  to  discontinue 
his  efforts  for  the  bill's  passage. 

164  Mr.  Knox  made  practically  the  same  statement  in  an  article 
printed  in  the  Sacramento  Bee  over  his  signature,  March  6,   1913, 
in   which   he   said: 

"The  total  amount  of  known  dredging  land  in  the  State,  ac- 
cording to  the  report  of  the  State  Mining  Bureau,  was,  in  1909, 
about  19,000  acres.  Since  that  time  it  has  been  reduced  to  about 
12,000  acres.  .  .  . 

"The  total  amount  of  dredging  land  suitable  for  agriculture 
is,  in  fact,  a  little  over  3000  acres — 1-300  of  one  per  cent,  of  the 
area  of  the  State,  or  1-80  of  one  per  cent,  of  its  agricultural 
area." 

Similar  statements  were  made   by  other  opponents  of  the   bill. 

"The  amount  of  land  attacked  by  the  (Kehoe)  bill  is  not 
great,"  said  Charles  Janin  in  the  Mining  and  Scientific  Press  in 
its  issue  for  March  8,  1913.  "Compared  to  the  total  area  of  arable 
lands  in  the  State  it  seems  almost  Infinitesimal.  At  the  present 
time  there  are  approximately  12,000  acres  of  land  thought  to  be 
suitable  for  dredging  in  the  State,  and  only  about  3500  acres  of 
this  could  be  classified  as  agricultural." 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      181 

With  Mr.  Knox's  statement  in  his  possession,  Kehoe 
proposed  to  the  dredging  men  that  the  bill  be  amended 
so  that  every  acre  of  the  10,885  given  in  the  description 
which  the  dredging  people  had  furnished  him  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  measure's  provisions.  Kehoe  proposed 
that  the  10,885  acres  be  described  in  the  bill  by  metes 
and  bounds,  with  the  definite  statement  that  the  bill's 
provisions  should  not  apply  to  those  10,885  acres.  He 
was  even  willing  that  the  excluded  acreage  run  a  thou- 
sand or  so  acres  beyond  this.  The  12,000  acres  or 
thereabouts,  especially  since  only  3,000  acres  were  fit 
for  agriculture,  were,  comparatively  speaking,  too  small 
to  quarrel  over. 

It  was  thought  that  by  this  compromise  all  objection 
to  the  bill  would  be  eliminated,  and  the  dredging  of 
valuable  agricultural  land,  which  conservationists  thought 
to  be  in  danger — but  which  the  dredge  people  denied — 
placed  under  State  supervision. 

Knox,  representing  extensive  dredge-mining  inter- 
ests, stated  at  first  that  Kehoe's  proposal  would  be  satis- 
factory. Nevertheless,  the  proposal  seems  to  have  stirred 
dredge-mining  circles. 

At  first  came  rumors  that  possibly  there  are  more 
than  12,000  acres  which  can  be  dredged.  Then  the 
definite  statement  was  made  that  the  acreage  might  be 
between  25,000  and  30,000  acres. 

After  Kehoe's  offer  had  been  made  public,  the 
dredge-mining  interests  redoubled  their  efforts  against 
the  bill.  They  were,  for  example,  successful  in  getting 
the  directors  of  the  Sacramento  Chamber  of  Commerce 
to  rescind  their  action  in  adopting  resolutions  approving 
the  measure. 


182      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

As  has  been  said,  the  Sacramento  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce, with  the  barren  wastes  of  cobblestones  where 
orchards  and  vineyards  had  once  been  as  object  lessons, 
through  its  board  of  directors  had  endorsed  the  bill.  The 
opponents  of  the  measure  feared  this  endorsement.  They 
proceeded  to  get  the  directors  to  rescind  their  action. 
A  meeting  for  that  purpose  was  called.  Knox  pre- 
sented the  case  for  the  dredging  people,  insisting  that 
if  the  Kehoe  bill  were  passed  as  it  had  been  drawn  it 
would  ruin  the  gold  dredging  industry. 

Knox's  statements  were  combated  by  W.  G.  Mc- 
Millin,  one  of  the  directors.  McMillan  contended  that  the 
dredge-mining  industry  would  not  be  endangered  by  the 
passage  of  the  bill.  He  stated  that  in  past  years  many 
acres  of  fine  agricultural  land  had  been  dredged  and 
ruined,  and  that  he  was  heartily  in  favor  of  a  law  that 
would  prevent  repetition  of  such  sacrifice  of  good  land. 
Mitchell  Nathan,  another  director,  sided  with  McMillin. 
He  stated  he  could  see  no  good  reason  for  a  reversal; 
that  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  was  supposed  to  be  an 
institution  for  the  protection  of  the  public.  Nathan  ob- 
jected to  the  institution  being  made  a  shuttlecock. 

Nevertheless,  the  directors,  by  a  vote  of  8  to  5 
rescinded  their  previous  action.  The  Sacramento  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  in  this  way  went  on  record  against  the 
Kehoe  bill. 

About  this  time  attacks  were  made  on  Kehoe's 
motives  in  introducing  the  bill.165  The  measure  was  de- 

165  The  Sacramento  Bee  in  an  editorial  article  printed  March 
12,  1913,  criticised  this  action. 

"The  Bee  believes."  said  that  paper,  "the  majority  of  the 
Directorate  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  made  a  mistake  on 
Monday  in  absolutely  rescinding  any  endorsement  of  the  Kehoa 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      183 

scribed  as  "having  the  appearance  of  a  cinch  bill."  None 
of  the  newspapers  giving  the  service  of  attorneys  to 
defeat  the  measure  dared  openly  charge  wrongful  mo- 
tive. But  by  indirection  and  suggestion  they  labored  to 
bring  discredit  upon  Kehoe  and  his  bill.166 

Even  while  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Boards  of 
Supervisors  were  being  stirred  up  to  protest  against  the 
passage  of  the  measure,  and  claquers  and  press  were 
laboring  to  discredit  it,  the  dredge  mining  people  were 

bill  for  the  regulation  of  dredge  mining  In  this  State,  without 
putting  that  body  on  record  as  approving  the  principle  thereof. 

"For  the  principle  of  the  Kehoe  bill  is  all  right.  There  should 
be  some  regulation  concerning,  and  some  restriction  of,  dredge 
mining.  .  .  . 

"The  Kehoe  bill,  amended  as  its  author  is  willing  and  ready 
to  amend  it,  should  not  be  objected  to  by  anybody. 

"In  fact,  Manager  Knox  of  the  Natomas  Consolidated  declared 
before  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  Directorate  that  the  bill  so 
amended  would  be  satisfactory  to  his  company,  with  the  right  of 
appeal  to  the  Courts  from  any  decision  of  the  Water  Commission 
concerning  other  lands." 

166  Of  this  bill,  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  in  its  issue  of 
March  12,  1913,  said: 

"Some  of  the  measures  which  are  to  draw  out  good  fighting 
would  be  called  cinch  bills  if  they  had  been  sent  in  In  the  bad 
old  days.  But  under  the  era  of  Progress  and  Reform  no  one  dares 
impute  any  but  motives  of  loftiness  and  uplift  to  those  who  have 
drafted  the  measures  or  those  who  are  supporting  them. 

"For  instance,  here  comes  Senator  Kehoe  from  far  Humboldt 
County,  where  there  is  no  dredger  mining,  and  puts  in  a  bill  that 
would  drive  the  dredger  men  out  of  business,  while  the  com- 
munities around  Oroville,  Marysville  and  Folsom  that  are  directly 
affected  by  the  dredgers  seem  enthusiastic  over  their  continuance. 

"Now  in  the  naughty  old  times  that  would  have  been  consid- 
ered just  the  bill  to  be  quietly  smothered  after  the  passing  of  a 
little  'stuff.'  But  no  one  Impugns  improper  motives  to  Kehoe  or 
to  Milton  T.  U'Ren,  who  is  said  to  have  drawn  the  bill  In  the 
interests  of  conservation. 

"It  is  amusing,  however,  to  note  the  sudden  interest  in  agri- 
cultural lands  suddenly  taken  by  some  lawgivers,  who  hardly 
know  an  olive  from  an  apricot,  but  who  can  tell  gold  from  paper 
money  as  far  as  ear  can  hear  or  eye  see. 

"They  sing  the  song  of  truly  rural  and  woes  of  the  farmer 
fill  their  eyes  with  tears  and  their  throats  with  sobs." 

The  writer  of  the  Examiner  article  stated  there  is  no  dredge 
mining  in  "far  away  Humboldt  County"  which  Kehoe  represents. 
Kehoe  represents  Trinity  as  well  as  Humboldt  County.  The  sub- 
stitute bill  offered  by  the  dredge  mining  people,  shows  that  in 
Humboldt  County  there  are  four  dredge  mining  districts  and  four 
In  Trinity  County. 


184      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

expressing  themselves  as  even  desirous  that  the  bill 
should  pass,  provided  the  10,885  acres,  which  they  had 
declared  was  all  the  land  fit  for  gold  dredging,  be  ex- 
cluded from  its  provisions.  As  Kehoe  was  willing  that 
this  comparatively  small  acreage  should  be  excluded, 
that  the  thousands  of  acres  which  Conservationists  regard 
as  endangered  by  gold  dredging  operations  might  be 
safeguarded,  the  bill  seemed  in  fair  way  of  passage. 

But  with  hint  that  the  10,885  acres  might  expand 
into  as  much  as  25,000,  or  even  30,000  acres,  came  sug- 
gestion that  the  acreage  might  not  be  so  small  as  the 
dredging  people  had  at  first  contended.  When  the 
dredging  people  submitted  their  substitute  to  the  Kehoe 
bill,167  showing  by  metes  and  bounds  their  acreage,  they 
asked  to  have  excluded  more  than  63,500  acres.  After 
the  substitute  bill  had  been  given  Kehoe,  the  dredger 
people  represented  to  him  that  some  2,500  acres,  not  in- 
cluded in  the  more  than  63,500,  had  been  discovered. 

Those  familiar  with  the  situation  contended  that  the 
passage  of  the  substitute  bill  would  give  the  dredger 
people  vested  rights  to  sacrifice  for  dredging  purposes 
all  the  land  described  in  the  proposed  bill.  Definite 
recognition  of  these  rights,  it  was  held,  would  be  worth 
millions  to  the  dredging  interests.  The  claim  was  made 
that  in  the  past  some  objection  had  been  raised  when 
securities  of  dredge-mining  companies  had  been  offered 
for  sale,  on  the  ground  that  the  State  of  California  may 
at  any  time  stop  dredging  operations.  The  passage  of 
the  Kehoe  bill,  amended  as  the  dredging  people  would 


I«T  The  substitute  measure  was  drawn  by  Judge  Charles  W. 
Slack,  general  counsel  for  the  Natomas  Consolidated  Company  of 
California. 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      185 

have  had  it,  would  -  foreclose  the  State  against  stopping 
dredging  operations  on  the  more  than  63,500  acres  de- 
scribed. The  dredge  miners  held,  however,  that  not  all 
of  the  63,500  acres  could  be  profitably  dredged,  but  that 
the  profitable  dredging  land  was  included  in  those  63,500 
acres. 

Kehoe  refused  to  accept  the  proposed  substitute. 
Single-handed  he  continued  the  fight  for  his  bill's 
passage. 

The  bill  came  up  for  public  hearing  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Agriculture.  Former  Governor  George 
C.  Pardee,  George  D.  King,  president  of  the  Fair  Oaks 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  Milton  T.  U'Ren  and  Senator 
Kehoe  spoke  in  its  support. 

Ex-Governor  Pardee,  for  the  Conservation  Commis- 
sion, stated  the  commission  was  pleased  to  see  land  used 
for  dredging  where  it  is  shown  to  be  of  more  value  for 
that  purpose  than  for  any  other,  the  same  as  the  com- 
mission approves  the  using  of  land  for  brick-making 
when  it  is  to  the  State's  best  interests  to  have  it  so  used. 
In  his  opinion,  Pardee  continued,  there  should  be  some 
authority  to  which  can  be  referred  the  question  of  the 
improper  destruction  of  agricultural  land  or  any  other 
land. 

President  King  of  the  Fair  Oaks  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce, had  come  from  a  district  in  which  gold  dredgers 
have  been  long  in  destructive  operation.  In  fact  the 
anti-gold  dredging  bill  considered  at  the  1905  session, 
had  its  best  support,  if  not  its  inspiration,  from  Fair 
Oaks  people.  The  gold  dredgers  had,  as  early  as  1905, 
converted  once  fertile  acres  of  that  district  into  ghastly 
piles  of  cobblestones. 


1 86      Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill 

Mr.  King  declared  that  Fair  Oaks  had  not  developed 
in  keeping  with  its  natural  resources  since  the  advent 
of  the  gold  dredger.  He  stated  Fair  Oaks  people  believe 
the  present  methods  of  conducting  dredge  operations  to 
be  a  menace  to  agriculture  in  California.  He  said  he 
regarded  the  Kehoe  bill  as  a  very  modest  one  under  the 
circumstances,  and  held  that  it  should  be  passed. 

"If  it  is  a  good  thing  to  conserve  our  water  and 
our  forests,"  concluded  King,  "is  it  not  also  a  good  thing 
to  preserve  the  lands  on  which  the  future  generations 
are  to  make  their  living?" 

Judge  Charles  W.  Slack,  who  does  not  live  at  Fair 
Oaks,  but  at  San  Francisco;  who  is  not  a  farmer,  but 
general  counsel  for  the  gold  dredging  concern  known  as 
the  Natomas  Consolidated  of  California — which  no  doubt 
fees  him  generously — spoke  strongly  against  the  bill's 
passage.  He  contended  that  under  the  terms  of  the 
measure  it  would  be  possible  for  a  biased  commission 
to  work  the  dredge-mining  industry  great  injury.  He 
predicted  that  should  the  Kehoe  bill  be  enacted,  dredger 
companies  would  go  into  the  hands  of  receivers.168 

Judge  Slack  did  not  go  so  far  in  direful  predic- 
tions, however,  as  did  State  Mineralogist  Hamilton. 
Hamilton  contended  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would 
lead  to  the  closing  of  the  United  States  mint  at  San 
Francisco. 

Under    Senator   Kehoe's    somewhat    sarcastic    cross- 

168  The  extravagant  claims  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  led  to 
amusing  contradictions.  They  had  contended,  for  example,  that, 
after  dredging,  the  land,  in  spite  of  the  piled  cobble  stones,  could 
be  restored  for  agricultural  uses.  On  the  other  hand,  Judge  Slack 
made  the  point  that  in  providing  that  agricultural  land  upturned 
by  dredging  operations  shall  be  restored  to  the  same  degree  of 
usefulness  and  fertility  as  it  originally  possessed,  the  Kehoe  bill 
required  something  impossible. 


Defeat  of  the  Dredge-Mining  Bill      187 

examination,  however,  Hamilton  admitted  that  if  the 
dredging  operations  at  Hammonton,  Yuba  County,  and 
in  the  Natomas  fields  were  permitted  to  continue  under 
the  proposed  regulations  of  the  Kehoe  bill,  the  mint 
would  not  close  this  year  nor  next  year. 

Senator  Boynton,  who  led  the  opposition  against  the 
measure  in  the  Senate,  reviewed  the  history  of  the  gold 
dredging  industry.  He  contended  that  but  for  this  in- 
dustry, reclamation  projects  in  the  Sacramento  Valley 
would  have  been  delayed  for  ten  years.  He  insisted  in 
conclusion  that  sentiment  alone  dictated  the  passage  of 
the  Kehoe  bill. 

The  Kehoe  bill  met  much  the  same  fate  as  did  the 
anti-dredge  mining  bill  of  1905.  The  Committee  on 
Agriculture  sent  it  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  do  not  pass.  In  the  Senate  only  four 
votes  were  cast  for  it ;  thirty-one  votes  were  cast  against 
it.169 

169  The  vote  by  which  the  Kehoe  Dredge  Mining  bill  was  de- 
feated was: 

For  the  bill — Brown,  Carr,  Grant,  and  Kehoe — 4. 

Against  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Conn, 
Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Lar- 
kins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 31. 

Senator  Caminetti  explained  his  vote  with  the  statement  that 
he  had  been  exhorted  by  his  constituents  to  oppose  the  bill.  If 
he  voted  against  the  wishes  of  The  People  of  his  district,  he  said, 
he  would  be  denying  them  representation  on  the  floor. 

A  telegram  from  Congressman  Kent,  who  was  then  at  Wash- 
ington, urging  the  measure's  passage,  was  read  during  the  debate. 

"From  this  end  of  the  line,"  said  Kent,  "it  would  seem  strange 
that  California  asks  millions  for  Government  co-operation  in 
reclamation  projects,  while,  at  the  same  time,  permitting,  under 
State  law,  the  destruction  of  some  of  the  most  valuable  land  In 
the  State  by  the  gold  dredgers.  This  destruction  represents 
short-sightedness,  inconceivable  folly. 

"The  short-lived  individual  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  destroy 
the  common  assets  of  the  State,  nor  to  so  use  or  to  abuse  his 
property  that  others  may  be  injured  by  that  abuse.  If  this  com- 
mon law  doctrine  does  not  apply  to  future  generations  then  it  la 
meaningless  and  sterile.  Nothing  could  be  more  reasonable  than 
to  demand  the  carrying  out  of  this  fundamental  principle  of  law 
and  social  order." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  INSURANCE  BILLS. 

A  week  or  ten  days  after  the  members  of  the  1913 
Legislature  had  been  elected,  representatives  of  large 
fire  insurance  companies  began  taking  the  legislators- 
elect  out  to  luncheon.  During  the  constitutional  recess, 
legislators  were  invited  to  receptions,  where  insurance 
officials  were  introduced  as  the  guests  of  honor.  And 
the  one  thing  impressed  upon  the  legislator  given  a 
meal  or  invited  to  reception,  was,  that  the  insurance 
companies  wanted  only  fair  treatment  at  the  hands  of 
the  Legislature. 

That  was  reasonable  enough. 

But  the  writer  knows  of  no  instance  where  the 
general  public,  by  deputy  or  otherwise,  took  a  member 
of  the  Legislature  out  to  dine,  or  invited  him  to  a  recep- 
tion, for  the  purpose  of  telling  him  that  all  the  public 
wants  is  fair  treatment  from  the  insurance  companies. 

But  in  spite  of  the  assurances  of  "fairness"  from 
the  underwriters'  representatives  on  the  Pacific  Coast, 
about  the  time  the  Legislature  opened,  from  two  inde- 
pendent sources  came  protestations  that  the  insurance 
companies,  as  represented  in  California,  are  anything 
but  fair. 

These  expressions  of  dissatisfaction   came: 

( 1 )  From  The  People  of  San  Francisco,  who  alleged 
insurance  rates  in  that  city  are  disproportionately  high. 


The  Insurance  Bills  189 

(2)  From  local  fire  insurance  agents,  who  claimed 
inequitable  treatment  from  the  underwriters. 

The  dissatisfaction  of  The  People  of  San  Francisco 
found  its  chief  expression  through  the  Mission  Promo- 
tion Association  of  that  city.170  The  insurance  agents 
were  united  in  an  organization  of  some  700  members, 
known  as  the  California  State  Association  of  Local 

170  The  Mission  Promotion  Association  appointed  a  committee 
consisting  of  Matt  I.  Sullivan  and  Eustace  Cullinan  to  inquire 
into  insurance  conditions.  In  a  report  filed  with  the  Association, 
this  committee  alleged  that  on  forty  typical  cases  taken  in  the 
business  portion  of  the  Mission  district,  the  insurance  rates  ranged 
from  2  to  9  25-100  per  cent,  per  annum  of  the  amount  of  the  risk. 
The  report  contained  allegations  that  fire  insurance  rates  are 
higher  in  San  Francisco  than  in  any  other  city  of  more  than 
100,000  inhabitants  in  the  country,  and  that  "during  six  years  be- 
ginning July  1,  1906,  and  ending  June  30,  1912,  according  to  re- 
ports filed  by  108  fire  insurance  companies,  premiums  collected  by 
them  in  San  Francisco  amounted  to  $30,000,000;  while  the  losses 
incurred  by  the  same  companies  during  the  same  period  amounted 
to  $4,750,000,  showing  a  total  of  premiums  in  excess  of  losses 
amounting  to  $25,250,000." 

The  further  allegations  were  made  that  in  California  in  1905 
the  ratio  of  losses  to  premiums  collected  was  37%  per  cent. ;  that 
by  1911  the  ratio  had  dropped  to  28%  per  cent.  "Although,"  says 
the  report,  "the  ratio  of  losses  to  premiums  in  California  is  con- 
siderably less  than  that  of  any  of  the  Eastern  States,  the  rates 
charged  in  California  are  greatly  in  excess  of  Eastern  rates;  that 
whereas  the  average  rate  at  San  Francisco  was,  in  1905,  1.02  per 
cent.,  the  average  rate  there  is  now  1.90  per  cent.;  that  this  is 
nearly  three  times  the  rate  charged  in  some  of  the  Eastern  cities." 

The  report  contained  the  following  comparative  table,  snowing 
net  fire  premiums  received  in  various  cities  and  losses  paid  for 
the  year  1910,  reported  to  the  State  insurance  departments  of 
New  York: 

Rate 
per  $100 
Population.      Premiums.  Losses.    Charged. 

Baltimore    558,000  $  2,095,134          $    671,310  $1.01 

Boston    570,000  4,293,268  3,108,499  .83 

Brooklyn,    N.    Y 1,697,000  4,972,251  1,934,870  .66 

Chicago    2,185,283  11,975,798  5,998,864  1.08 

Kansas    City 248,000  1,385,801  1,045,779  .98 

Milwaukee     373,000  2,042,227  740,155  .95 

Minneapolis      301,400  1,852,440  1,957,201  .98 

Newark,    N.    J 347,469  1,685,896  1,056,806  1.11 

New    Orleans 339,000  1,508,828  791,410  1.15 

Philadelphia    1,549,000  5,289,325  2,481,884  .88 

St.     Louis 687,029  3,048,623  1,274,681  .97 

St.    Paul 214,000  1,030,989  703,052  .99 

New  York   City 4,766,883  20,085,850  8,145,961  .68 

SAN    FRANCISCO 416,912  4,979,653  800,581  1.95 

Note. — The  above  figures  taken  from  Insurance  Year  Book  for 
1911,  on  page  544. 


190  The  Insurance  Bills 

Fire  Insurance  Agents.  The  principal  representation 
of  the  underwriters  came  through  their  organization, 
the  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific.171 

Thus,  the  three  elements  involved  in  the  contest  over 
the  insurance  measures  considered  at  the  1913  session, 


in  The  State  Insurance  Commissioner  in  a  statement  sent  out 
while  the  Legislature  was  in  session,  said  of  the  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters  of  the  Pacific: 

"There  are  at  the  present  time  approximately  135  companies, 
exclusive  of  mutual  companies,  engaged  (in  this  State)  in  the 
(fire  insurance)  business  and  regularly  licensed  by  the  Insurance 
Commissioner.  Of  these,  some  eighty  are  members  of  the  so-called 
Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific.  The  remainder  are  the  so-called 
independent  or  non-board  companies.  The  Underwriters  or  Board 
companies  are  those  which  are  associated  together  for  the  pur- 
pose ostensibly  of: 

"(1)  Equitable  adjustment  of  rates  to  hazards. 

"(2)  Encouragement  of  improved  methods  of  construction. 

"(3)  Reduction  of  expense  by  co-operation  in  survey,  etc.,  so 
as  to  secure  reasonable  profit  to  its  members. 

"In  addition  they  co-operate  with  one  another  in  the  limitation 
of  the  number  of  agencies,  control  of  agents'  commissions,  pre- 
vention of  rate  cutting,  and  in  a  general  way  vouch  one  another's 
stability. 

"The  essential  and  fundamental  purpose  of  the  board,  and  one 
which  more  than  any  other,  perhaps,  may  be  said  to  be  its  most 
important  function*  is  the  maintenance  of  its  rating  bureau 
which  provides  a  standard  of  classification  for  all  risks,  fixes  rates 
and  provides  the  expert  service  necessary  for  the  application  of 
rates  to  risks.  .  .  . 

"The  Board  is  a  private  concern  over  which,  at  the  present 
time,  the  Insurance  Commissioner  has  no  control,  and,  presuma- 
bly, its  activities  and  standards  are  those  which  conform  to  the 
interests  and  standards  of  its  membership." 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  Mission  Promotion  Association 
to  investigate  fire  insurance  conditions,  reported  the  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters  to  be  a  trust,  "responsible  for  the  extortionate  rates 
of  insurance  charged  .  .  .  throughout  the  State."  The  report 
set  forth: 

"Fire  insurance  rates  now  imposed  upon  the  insuring  public, 
are  grossly  excessive,  and  in  many  instances  prohibitive.  They 
are  fixed  by  a  combination  of  insurance  companies  known  as  the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific.  Eighty-four  insurance 
companies  doing  business  in  this  State  are  members  of  the  com- 
bination. Thirty-eight  companies,  unimportant,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  two  or  three,  known  as  'Non-Board'  companies,  are  not 
represented  in  the  Board,  and  are,  therefore,  not  bound  by  its 
rules  and  regulations.  'Non-Board'  companies  generally  charge 
rates  slightly  lower  than  those  fixed  by  the  combination.  We  are 
informed  that  there  is  a  tacit  understanding  between  the  'Non- 
Board'  companies  and  the  combination,  pursuant  to  which  no 
serious  cutting  of  rates  is  practised.  The  Board  of  Underwriters, 
as  constituted,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  formidable  trust, 
which  is  responsible  for  the  extortionate  rates  of  insurance 
charged  in  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  and  throughout 
the  State  of  California." 


The  Insurance  Bills  191 

were  the  general  public,  the  insurance  agents  and  the 
underwriters. 

The  People  were  not  organized  and  soon  lost  interest 
and  influence  in  the  controversy.  The  local  agents, 
although  well  organized,  and  at  first  full  of  fight,  were 
cowed  by  the  tremendous  influence  of  the  under- 
writers. They  gave  up  the  most  important  of  their 
contests  and  were,  in  the  end,  beaten  in  the  others.172 
The  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific  had, 
in  the  end  as  they  had  had  session  after  session,  things 
about  their  own  way. 

The  principal  insurance  measures  introduced  at  the 
1913  session  were  directed  against  the  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters.  These  measures  were  readily  divided 
into  two  classes: 

(1)  Those   prohibiting   such    organizations    as    the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific. 

(2)  Those  which  would  bring  such  Boards,  in  fact 
all    insurance    companies    or    combination   of    insurance 


172  The    California    State    Association    of    Local    Fire    Insurance 
Agents  wanted  of  the  Legislature: 

(1)  A  law  to  prevent  discrimination  in  rates,  requiring  the  Un- 
derwriters  to   file    with   the  proper   State   authorities    their   rating 
schedules.     (Senate  bill  896.)     This  measure  the  Association  aban- 
doned, and  at  the  final,  opposed. 

(2)  A  law  to  prevent  rebating  in  any  form.    (Assembly  bill  683.) 
This  measure  was  held  in  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Insurance 
until  the  last  day  of  the  session  and  was  then  reported  out  with- 
out recommendation. 

(3)  A  law   to  be   known   as   the   Resident  Agency  law,    to   pro- 
vide that  the  business  of  a  locality  must  be  written  by  an  agent 
of  that  locality.     (Assembly  bill  637,   and  Senate  bill   622.)     These 
were  duplicate   or   companion   measures.     Neither   reached   a  vote 
in  either  House. 

(4)  A  law  to  limit  the  number  of  agents  to  two  for  each  com- 
pany in  cities  and  towns  of  100,000  or  less,  and  to  four  for  cities 
of  over  100,000.    (Assembly  bill  639,  and  Senate  bill  625.)     The  Sen- 
ate bill  never  got  out   of  the   Senate  Insurance  Committee.     The 
Assembly  bill  on  the  last  day  of  the  session  was  reported  out  of 
the   Assembly  Insurance    Committee  without   recommendation.     It 
did  not  reach  a  vote. 


192  The  Insurance  Bills 

companies,  so  far  as  they  provide  a  standard  of  classi- 
fication of  risks,  under  practical  State  supervision. 

The  first  group  of  bills,  intended  to  outlaw  com- 
binations of  insurance  companies  that  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  rate  fixing,  emanated  from  the  San  Francisco 
Promotion  Association.  They  had  been  drawn  by  the 
association's  insurance  committee  headed  by  Matt  I. 
Sullivan.  They  were  known  as  the  Sullivan  bills. 

The  first  of  the  Sullivan  measures  173  made  it  unlaw- 
ful for  two  or  more  persons,  firms,  corporations,  part- 
nerships or  associations,  engaged  in  any  way  in  the 
business  of  insurance  in  this  State,  to  form  or  belong 
to  any  combination,  or  to  be  a  party  to  any  rate-making 
arrangement.  Every  person  engaged  in  insurance  was 
required  to  file  an  annual  statement  that  he  did  not 
belong  to  such  an  organization.  California  companies 
which  violated  the  provisions  of  the  Act  lost  their  char- 
ters ;  foreign  companies  forfeited  their  right  to  do  busi- 
ness in  the  State. 

Such  combinations  were  declared  to  be  conspiracies, 
punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than 
$5,000,  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  six  months 
nor  more  than  one  year,  or  both  such  fine  and  impris- 
onment. Each  day's  violation  of  the  provision  consti- 
tuted a  separate  offense. 

Such  was  the  Sullivan  Anti-Insurance  Trust  bill. 

But  the  statute  books  are  filled  with  such  thunderous 
anti-trust  statutes  without  any  of  the  "trusts"  appearing 
to  be  much  the  worse  for  it.  The  Sullivan  committee, 


173  Introduced   by   Gerdes   In   the   Senate    (Senate   bill   122)    and 
by  Ryan  in  the  Assembly  (Assembly  bill  1853). 


The  Insurance  Bills  193 

however,  in  a  second  measure  made  very  effective  pro- 
vision for  the  enforcement  of  this  act. 

The  second  Sullivan  bill 174  provided  that  every  con- 
tract and  policy  of  insurance  made  after  the  passage  of 
the  measure  should  be  construed  to  mean  that  in  the 
event  of  loss  or  damage  thereunder,  the  assuerd  could, 
in  addition  to  the  actual  loss  or  damage  suffered,  re- 
cover twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  such  actual 
loss,  if  he  could  show  that  at  the  time  the  insurance 
policy  was  issued,  the  insurer  belonged  to  any  insurers' 
combine. 

Both  the  fire  underwriters  and  the  local  agents  were 
frankly  and  heartily  opposed  to  the  Sullivan  bills. 

The  measures  did  not  get  far.  In  the  Assembly,  the 
Insurance  Committee  held  them  until  the  last  day  of  the 
session,  when  they  were  sent  to  the  Assembly  floor 
without  recommendation.  The  Senate  Insurance  Com- 
mittee sent  them  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  they  do  not  pass.  One  of  them,  Senate  Bill 
122,  was  to  play  an  interesting  part  in  the  insurance 
controversy,  but  neither  bill  ever  reached  a  vote. 

The  second  group  of  insurance  measures,  instead  of 
outlawing  combinations  of  underwriters  organized  for 
purposes  of  rate  classification,  proposed  to  bring  such 
rate  classification  under  State  supervision. 

The  most  important  of  these  measures  176  was  Sen- 
ate Bill  896,  introduced  by  Kehoe  of  Humboldt. 

174  Senate    bill    121,    Introduced    by    Gerdes,    and    Assembly   bill 
1854,   Introduced  by  Ryan. 

175  The   principal   other  measures   of  this   group   were  Assembly 
bill  1564   (Byrnes)   and  Senate  bill  1378   (Wright).     On  the  last  day 
of    the    session    the    Assembly   Insurance    Committee    returned    the 
Byrnes  bill  to  the  Assembly  without  recommendation.    The  Wright 
bill  was  not  acted  on  by  the  Senate  Insurance  Committee. 


194  The  Insurance  Bills 

The  Kehoe  Insurance  Rating  Schedule  bill  was 
drawn  on  the  theory  that  such  organizations  as  the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific  have  a  use- 
ful function,  and  can  be  made  of  service  to  insurer  as 
well  as  to  insured. 

The  principal  work  of  the  Board  of  Fire  Under- 
writers— and  the  one  which  has  been  the  most  severely 
criticized — is  that  of  rate  fixing.  The  underwriters 
claim  that  the  rates  thus  fixed  are  made  according  to 
exact  formula  and  are  fair  to  all.  The  Kehoe  bill  pro- 
vided that  this  formula,  or  rating  schedule,  should  be 
filed  with  the  Insurance  Commissioner,  and  become 
public  property.  All  such  rating  schedules  were  re- 
quired to  contain  the  elements  which  are  used  in 
making  the  various  rates.  Every  company  and  its 
agents,  once  the  company  had  elected  to  follow  a  given 
rating  schedule,  were  required  to  abide  by  such  schedule 
until  it  substituted  another.  Every  company  doing  busi- 
ness in  the  State  was  required  to  have  the  schedule 
under  which  its  rates  were  fixed  on  file  with  the  In- 
surance Commissioner,  but  it  was  left  optional  with  the 
company  to  file  -its  own  schedule  or  adopt  the  schedule 
of  a  rating  bureau.  The  act  specifically  provided  that 
any  fire  insurance  company  doing  business  under  ad- 
visory rates  furnished  by  a  rating  bureau — namely,  an 
organization  of  the  nature  of  the  Board  of  Fire  Under- 
writers of  the  Pacific — should  be  relieved  of  the  neces- 
sity of  filing  a  rating  schedule  upon  filing  written  notice 
in  the  office  of  the  Insurance  Commissioner  of  its 
adoption  of  the  advisory  rates  of  the  rating  bureau. 

The  bill  declared  the  business  of  conducting  a  rating 
bureau  to  be  a  public  service  in  character  and  required 


The  Insurance  Bills  195 

that  it  should  be  conducted  without  profit  to  any  party, 
except  that  fair  and  reasonable  compensation  should 
be  paid  for  all  services  actually  rendered  and  necessary 
to  the  business.  The  services  of  such  rating  bureaus 
were  made  available  to  any  and  all  insurance  compa- 
nies, agents,  brokers  and  property  owners. 

This  bill  had  the  approval  of  the  California  State 
Association  of  Local  Fire  Insurance  Agents.  In  an 
address  before  a  meeting  of  the  Oakland  Board  of 
Underwriters,  at  which  a  number  of  members  of  the 
Legislature  were  present,  M.  G.  Callaghan,  vice-presi- 
dent of  the  association,  and  chairman  of  its  legislative 
committee,  stated  that  the  bill  "might  be  headed  A 
square  deal  for  everybody!' 176  In  a  circular  sent  out 


176  This  address  was  made  early  in  March  toward  the  close  of 
the  legislative  recess.  Of  the  Rating  Schedule  measure — or  Rating 
Bureau  measure  as  Mr.  Callaghan  called  it — he  said: 

"This  is  a  Rating  Bureau  measure,  and  provides  for  the  filing 
by  the  companies  of  a  rating  schedule  with  the  Insurance  Com- 
missioner. This  schedule  fixes  the  rate  at  which  every  classi- 
fication of  risk  must  be  written,  and  provides  a  penalty  for  any 
deviation  therefrom.  This  bill  might  be  headed  A  SQUARE 
DEAL  FOR  EVERYBODY.  It  has  not  been  introduced  as  a 
local  agency  measure,  it  emanates  from  another  source. 

"Rate  making  in  the  past  has  not  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
local  agents  of  California;  that  matter  has  been  attended  to  by 
the  Board  of  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific.  But  the  application  of 
those  rates  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  local  agents,  and  the 
committee  of  which  I  am  chairman  has  seen  fit  to  endorse  this 
bill. 

"I  understand  Senator  Kehoe  is  looking  after  legislation  asked 
for  at  your  hands  by  the  Insurance  Commissioner,  and  this  bill 
has  been  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  him.  No  man  in  Califor- 
nia is  in  a  better  position  to  judge  what  is  best  for  the  people 
along  insurance  lines  than  the  present  Insurance  Commissioner. 
He  has  given  the  best  that  is  in  him  to  the  people  of  California 
since  he  accepted  his  present  office.  He  is  in  personal  contact 
with  rates  and  their  application,  and  sometimes  their  discrimina- 
tion, every  day  in  the  year.  He  has  informed  me  that  a  meas- 
ure of  this  kind  has  become  absolutely  necessary  at  the  present 
time.  Laws  along  these  lines  are  on  the  Statute  Books  of  every 
progressive  State  in  the  Union,  and  particularly  has  this  law 
given  extreme  satisfaction  in  the  State  of  Washington,  where  it 
has  been  in  successful  operation  for  the  past  two  years. 

"Now  I  want  to  say  to  you  gentlemen  in  whose  hands  the 
destinies  of  legislation  in  this  State  is  placed  at  the  present 
time,  that  next  to  Banking  comes  Insurance  in  the  bulwark  of 


196 


The  Insurance  Bills 


under  date  of  February  15,  the  Insurance  Agents' 
Association  referred  to  the  Kehoe  Rating  Schedule 
bill  as  "the  most  perfect  piece  of  legislation  of  its  kind 
ever  prepared,"  and  placed  it  first  of  the  several  meas- 
ures for  the  enactment  of  which  the  association  de- 
clared itself  to  be  laboring.1™ 

the  credit  of  all  our  industries,  and  without  insurance  there 
would  be  NO  BANKING. 

"Anything  that  will  tend  to  in  any  way  upset  or  disarrange 
the  present  stability  of  either  of  those  institutions  should  receive 
no  consideration  from  any  body  of  men  having  the  welfare  of  our 
State  at  heart.  And  I  will  say  to  you  now,  that  if  it  is  the  in- 
tention of  the  present  Legislature  to  enact  into  law  Senate  bills 
Nos.  121  and  122  (the  Sullivan  bills),  then  the  adoption  of  this 
Rating  Bureau  measure  becomes  an  absolute  necessity  if  chaos  is 
to  be  prevented  in  the  insurance  business  of  this  State." 

ITT  This  circular  declared  the  Association's  policies  toward 
pending  legislation.  It  was  issued  during  the  legislative  recess. 
It  read  as  follows: 

"Noah  Adair,   President  C.   Fred  Burks,   Sec. 

San  Bernardino  Oakland 

-"CALIFORNIA    STATE   ASSOCIATION    OF   LOCAL    FIRE 
INSURANCE   AGENTS. 

"February  15,   1913. 
"Local  Fire  Insurance  Agent. 

"Dear  Sir: — This  letter  is  addressed  to  you  from  the  local  flre 
insurance  agents  of  California,  whose  business  and  interests  are 
identical  with  yours  and  who  have  given  the  subject  a  considera- 
tion which  would  doubtless  be  surprising  to  you. 

"We  have  met  time  and  time  again  on  legislative  matters,  at 
considerable  expense  and  loss  of  time,  omitting  nothing  that 
might  prove  beneficial.  For  example,  we  sent  one  man  to  Wash- 
ington for  information — we  have  ransacked  the  insurance  laws  of 
the  States  of  this  Nation;  we  have  corresponded  and  conferred 
with  a  multitude  in  divers  places  in  order  to  draft  the  best  pos- 
sible legislation. 

"We  now  ask  your  consideration  of  our  efforts  and  active  as- 
sistance in  getting  these  measures  enacted  into  laws.  Two  years 
ago  the  State  Association  of  Local  Agents  had  good  bills  before 
the  Legislature  and  certain  companies  succeeded  in  defeating 
them  by  getting  uninformed  local  agents  to  wire  or  write  their 
legislators  to  oppose  them.  If  you  receive  letters  making  similar 
requests  relative  to  our  present  legislation,  please  send  them  to 
us,  if  personal  requests,  please  notify  one  of  us. 

"The   legislation   proposed   this  time   consists   of: 

"First — A  bill  to  prevent  discrimination  in  rates  by  the  filing 
of  rating  schedules.  Its  plan  was  born  of  necessity  in  another 
State.  A  COMPANY  UNDER  ITS  OPERATION  CANNOT  WRITE 
THE  INSURANCE  OF  A  WEALTHY  CORPORATION  FOR  LESS 
CORRESPONDINGLY  THAN  THE  HOUSE  OF  A  WOMAN 
WHO  SCRUBS  ITS  FLOOR.  No  discrimination  can  be  prac- 
ticed under  its  operation.  It  is  the  most  perfect  piece  of  legis- 
lation of  Its  kind  ever  prepared.  (Senate  Bill  No.  896.) 

"Second — A  bill  to  prevent  rebating  in  any  form.  It  penalizes 
both  agent  and  assured.  (Assembly  Bill  No.  683.) 

"Third — A  bill  known  as  a  resident  agency  law,  providing  that 


The  Insurance  Bills  197 

The  officers  of  the  association  went  so  far  as  to 
write  members  of  the  Legislature  urging  them  to  sup- 
port the  bill,  and  warning  them  that  the  fire  under- 
writers would  do  all  in  their  power  to  defeat  the 
measure. 

"The  fire  insurance  companies,"  wrote  Noah  Adair, 
president  of  the  association,  to  Senator  Lee  C.  Gates, 
under  date  of  March  8,  1913,  "are  reaping  a  harvest 
from  the  premium  payers  of  California  and  will  nat- 
urally combat  any  effort  to  change  conditions,  and 
doubtless  you  are  receiving  telegrams  and  letters  pur- 
porting to  be  in  the  interest  of  the  people  but  which  in 
reality  are  instigated  and  paid  for  by  the  companies 
and  sent  by  uninformed  local  agents.  The  companies' 
employees  are  visiting  every  hamlet  and  town  in  the 
State  with  this  one  end  in  view." 

At  Los  Angeles,  during  the  legislative  recess,  the 
Los  Angeles  Local  Fire  Insurance  Board  gave  a 
luncheon  to  the  Southern  California  members  of  the 
Legislature,  at  which  the  advantages  of  the  Rating 
Schedule  bill  were  urged.  But,  somewhat  to  their  con- 
sternation, the  insurance  agents  found  the  legislators 


the  business  of  a  locality  must  be  written  by  an  agent  of  that 
locality.  (Assembly  Bill  No.  637.  Senate  Bill  No.  622.) 

"Fourth — A  bill  providing  for  limiting  the  number  of  agents 
to  two  for  each  company  in  cities  and  towns  of  100,000  or  less, 
and  four  for  cities  of  over  100,000.  Since  there  are  161  companies 
authorized  to  do  business  in  the  State,  no  agent  would  have 
trouble  in  obtaining  a  sufficient  number  of  companies  to  carry 
his  business.  (Assembly  Bill  No.  639.  Senate  Bill  No.  625.) 

"If  for  any  reason  you  now  or  hereafter  think  any  of  these 
bills  should  be  opposed,  please  write  your  objection  to  any  of  us 
and  we  will  give  you  the  reason  why  we  think  the  enactment  of 
these  bills  will  be  beneficial  to  the  local  agents  and  the  people. 

"Noah  Adair,  President,  San  Bernardino;  C.  FRED  BURKS, 
Secretary,  Oakland;  I.  H.  Clay,  Oakland;  M.  G.  Callaghan,  Liver- 
more;  W.  G.  Thompson,  Napa;  J.  E.  Phelps,  Los  Angeles;  Chas. 
F.  E.  Niemann,  Sacramento." 


198  The  Insurance  Bills 

had  come  to  the  meeting  with  the  opinion  already 
formed  that  if  the  Rating  Measure  were  enacted  the 
effect  would  be  to  entrench  more  securely  the  under- 
writers in  their  monopolistic  position.178  The  agents 
devoted  the  time  in  giving  instances  illustrating  the 
alleged  inequalities  in  rate  making  as  practiced  by  the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific  and  the  non- 
board  companies.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  con- 
nection that  a  few  days  before  some  of  the  legislators 
present  at  that  luncheon,  if  not  all  of  them,  had  been 
entertained  at  a  reception  at  which  a  prominent  fire 
insurance  company  official  was  the  guest  of  honor. 

The  differences  between  the  underwriters  and  the 
local  agents  at  the  close  of  the  legislative  recess  may 
be  summed  up  as  follows : 

The  underwriters  contended  that  the  Legislature 
should  pass  no  laws  affecting  the  fixing  of  insurance 
rates,  or  governing  the  application  of  such  rates  after 
they  had  been  fixed. 

The  local  agents  held,  on  the  other  hand,  that  insur- 
ance is  public  in  character  and  as  much  subject  to 
regulation  by  the  State  as  are  the  railroads. 

"Here  is  where  the  Local  Agents  differ  with  the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters,"  said  M.  G.  Callaghan. 
chairman  of  the  Insurance  Agents'  Legislative  Com- 
mittee, toward  the  close  of  the  constitutional  recess. 
"Here  is  where  the  big  clash  will  come,  and  on  this 


ITS  This  argument,  that  the  passage  of  the  Rating  Schedule 
bill  would  give  the  underwriters  a  monopoly,  was  employed  until 
the  final  vote  was  taken  In  the  Senate  late  in  April.  The  fact 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  argument  was  set  forth  by 
the  lobbyists  and  publicity  agents  employed  by  the  underwriters. 
See  Senator  Kehoe's  reply  to  this  argument,  page  209. 


The  Insurance  Bills  199 

ground  the  agency  system  of  California  will  get  hurt 
unless  the  State  comes  to  our  assistance."  179 

The  fire  underwriters  toward  the  end  of  the  con- 
stitutional recess,  took  steps  to  prevent  the  passage  of 
the  Rating  Schedule  bills.  They  called  upon  the  local 
fire  insurance  agents  to  oppose  the  passage  of  such 
measures.160  In  one  notable  case  at  least,  that  of 


i7»  And  yet,  the  Association  of  Local  Fire  Insurance  Agents 
did  not  Itself  secure  the  Introduction  of  the  Rating-  Schedule 
measure,  lest  such  action  jeopardize  the  passage  of  their  other 
bills.  Under  date  of  January  24,  1913,  CaUaghan  wrote  Insur- 
ance Commissioner  Cooper: 

"In  regard  to  the  Rating  (Schedule)  Bureau  measure  we  have 
decided  not  to  introduce  it,  at  the  present  time,  on  account  of 
information  which  has  come  to  us  that  if  anything  was  at- 
tempted by  the  State  Association  in  the  matter  of  rate  making 
it  might  seriously  jeopardize  the  passage  of  our  other  measures, 
and  as  we  have  worked  on  these  other  measures  for  the  past 
year,  and  have  set  our  hearts  on  their  adoption,  we  have  decided 
that  their  defeat  was  too  big  a  price  to  pay,  for  the  privilege 
even  of  being  the  first  organization  in  California  to  attempt  to 
put  a  legal  Rate  Making  bureau  on  the  statute  books,  hence  the 
committee  has  decided  to  abandon  that  bill,  and  I  thought  that 
you  should  be  Informed  of  our  action,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
we  took  it  up  with  you  at  the  time  of  our  conference." 

Callaghan's  letter  in  view  of  the  fact  that  his  association's 
measures  scarcely  got  beyond  the  committees  to  which  they  were 
referred,  is  pathetic. 

iso  This  was  done  In  a  circular  sent  out  under  date  of  Feb- 
ruary 28.  The  circular  read: 

"San    Francisco.    February   28,    1913. 
"To   the   Fire   Insurance   Agents    In    California: 

"We  ask  your  co-operation  in  opposing  Senate  Bills  No.  896 
and  No.  1378,  and  Assembly  Bill  No.  1564,  known  as  rate-filing 
bills,  and  placing  all  insurance  rates  under  State  supervision,  by 
requiring  each  company  operating  In  this  State  to  file  with  the 
Insurance  Commissioner  its  system  of  rates. 

"These  bills  all  represent  complicated  and  expensive  systems, 
and  each  differs  from  the  others  in  its  method,  and  is  a  depart- 
ure from  the  well-established  principle  that  the  man  who  sells 
the  goods  must  make  the  price,  and,  if  adopted  In  Its  present 
shape,  would,  we  feel  satisfied,  ultimately  ruin  the  insurance 
business  of  California. 

"There  Is  a  mistaken  notion  on  the  part  of  some  Insurance 
men  that  State  regulation  of  rates  will  Improve  conditions.  One 
of  the  most  experienced  Eastern  underwriters,  commenting  upon 
this,  states: 

"  'The  idea  of  these  theorists  Is  that  control  of  rates  by 
the  States  will  check  rate  cutting  and  competition.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  opens  the  door  to  the  free-booter,  whose 
operations  in  the  East  and  Middle  West  are  assuming  greater 


aoo  The  Insurance  Bills 

Noah  Adair,  president  of  the  California  State  Associa- 
tion of  Local  Fire  Insurance  Agents,  the  request  of 
the  underwriters  was  ignored.  The  agencies  for  the 
insurance  companies  which  Adair  represented  were 
taken  away  from  him. 

Most  of  the  agents,  however,  ceased  their  demanding 
that  the  Rating  Schedule  bill  be  passed.  Represent- 
atives of  the  Association  of  Local  Fire  Insurance 
Agents,  after  the  second  part  of  the  session  opened, 
were,  for  a  time,  silent  regarding  it.  And  then,  through 
their  vice-president,  M.  G.  Callaghan,  chairman  of  their 
legislative  committee,  when  the  critical  moment  of  the 
bill's  passage  came,  announced  the  Association  to  be 
definitely  against  its  passage. 

"Big  Business"  had  triumphed  over  the  little  fellow. 

proportions  day  by  day.  If  one  will  simply  study  the  returns 
of  Kansas,  Missouri  and  Texas  since  this  State  supervision 
idea  has  gained  prevalence  in  those  important  fields,  he  is 
bound  to  become  convinced  that,  from  both  the  companies' 
and  agents'  point  of  view,  the  method  is  bad,  all  the  way 
through.' 

"Some  also  have  the  idea  that  one  of  the  above  mentioned 
bills  is  a  copy  of  the  Washington  rating  law.  This  also  is  a 
mistake.  Under  the  Washington  law,  the  State  does  not  control 
or  supervise  the  making  of  rates,  but  merely  requires  that  the 
schedules  used  are  applied  uniformly,  and  that  discrimination  Is 
not  permitted.  The  Washington  law  is  quite  different  from  either 
of  those  proposed  in  this  State. 

"The  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific,  which  these 
bills  would  destroy,  has  a  long  and  honorable  record,  is  equipped 
to  do,  and  is  doing,  most  efficient  work,  in  the  way  of  showing 
how  rates  may  be  reduced  by  reducing  the  fire  hazard,  and  it 
should  be  maintained. 

"Kindly  carefully  read  the  enclosures,  and  we  think  the  facts 
and  figures  contained  therein  will  convince  any  fair-minded  man 
not  only  that  the  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  should  be  main- 
tained, but  that  experimenting  in  State  rates,  which  threaten  the 
disruption  of  an  important  business,  should  be  opposed  in  every 
way.  Extra  copies  of  the  pamphlets  will  be  furnished  on  appli- 
cation. 

"We  hope  that  you  will  promptly  communicate  with  your 
Representative,  and  will  ask  all  Influential  citlrens  In  your  com- 
munity to  do  likewise,  requesting  their  opposition  to  these  meas- 
ures. 

"LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE,  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the 
Pacific." 


The  Insurance  Bills  201 

And  later  on,  in  the  defeat  of  the  Kehoe  Rating 
Schedule  bill,  "Big  Business,"  assisted  by  public  opinion 
against  the  bill  which  the  clerks  of  "Big  Business"  had 
worked  up,  was  to  triumph  over  the  progressive  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  of  California.181 

isi  Independent  insurance  agents,  of  course,  continued  their 
support  of  the  measure.  Under  date  of  March  9,  J.  B.  Phelps 
of  Los  Angeles,  third  vice-president  of  the  California  State  As- 
sociation of  Local  Fire  Insurance  Agents,  wrote  Insurance  Com- 
missioner Cooper  warning  him  of  the  campaign  that  was  being 
carried  on  against  the  bill. 

"The  only  means,"  said  Phelps,  "by  which  the  Pacific  Board 
(Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific)  can  defeat  your  bills 
is  in  warping  and  distorting  the  facts  to  limited  experienced 
local  agents  and  then  inducing  these  agents  to  wire  or  write 
their  legislators  to  defeat  your  bills.  The  Pacific  Board  has  sent 
its  untruthful  literature  all  over  the  State  and  this  coming  week 
or  weeks  will  find  the  companies'  Special  Agents  exceedingly 
active  in  personal  canvas  work  with  local  agents.  To  offset  such 
influence  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  your  bills  presented  in 
both  houses  by  able  and  well  known  administration  men.  No 
doubt  bills  coming  out  of  committee  are  blessed  with  a  great 
deal  of  vitality,  but  the  'babes'  cannot  live  if  the  wolves  press 
in  on  them  too  hard  and  fast,  and  the  company  managers  in 
San  Francisco  can  see  their  pocket  books  grow  materially 
thinner  if  these  bills  reach  enactment. 

"We  agents  have  not  sufficient  funds  or  time  to  devote  to  a 
campaign  of  education  and  on  the  other  side  the  companies  are 
well  supplied  with  both,  it  is  therefore  a  serious  situation  we  are 
compelled  to  face,  with  hundreds  of  men  in  the  field  against  us 
securing  the  co-operation  of  the  local  agents  we  cannot  reach. 
We  hope  to  offset  some  of  the  company  work  in  Sacramento  and 
believe  that  our  letter  to  agents  will  prove  of  some  benefit.  The 
cities  in  the  State  have  been  well  taken  care  of  and  I  believe 
we  are  safe  in  counting  on  favorable  votes  from  their  legislators." 

Under  date  of  March  13,  Phelps  again  wrote  Cooper: 

"The  Special  Agents  of  the  companies,"  he  said,  "are  meeting 
with  some  success  in  the  field  and  have  prevailed  upon  a  few 
officers  of  Local  Boards  to  write  their  legislators  to  work  and 
vote  against  your  Senate  Bill  No.  896  in  its  present  form;  con- 
tending that  sections  3  and  4  would  practically  permit  the  Insur- 
ance Commissioner  to  create  conditions  similar  to  those  effective 
under  the  Sullivan  bill,  for  he  could  refuse  to  accept  rates  as 
filed,  thereby  inducing  wide  open  competition.  All  San  Fran- 
cisco company  managers  have  used  this  argument  freely  and, 
apparently  with  the  belief  that  it  is  the  only  vulnerable  spot  in 
your  bill,  in  fact  they  see  in  this  element  the  step  that  will  lead 
to  State  Rating.  The  managers  endeavor  to  blind  the  local 
agents  as  to  the  real  purpose  of  their  opposition  by  stating  that 
they  favor  the  Washington  law  and  would  offer  no  opposition  to 
your  bill  had  you  not  included  sections  3  and  4." 


CHAPTER  XV. 

DEFEAT   OF   THE   KEHOE   RATING   SCHEDULE   BILL. 

After  the  legislative  recess  a  most  powerful  lobby 
representing  the  fire  insurance  underwriters,  appeared 
at  Sacramento.  T.  C.  Coogan,  who  had  represented  the 
insurance  people  at  many  legislative  sessions,  and  Daniel 
A.  Ryan,182  Chairman  of  the  Progressive  Republican 
State  Central  Committee,  were  the  most  conspicuous 
of  the  group.  The  efforts  of  the  lobby  were  directed 
particularly  to  convincing  the  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature that  the  Kehoe  Rating  Schedule  bill  should  not 
be  passed.  In  addition  to  the  work  of  the  lobbyists  on 
the  ground,  there  came  hundreds  of  letters  from  in- 
surance agents  and  from  citizens  urging  that  the  Kehoe 
bill  be  not  passed.  Some  of  these  letters  were  most 
conflicting.  Members  received  from  the  same  writers 
letters  protesting  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and 
letters  urging  that  the  measure  be  passed. 

Week  after  week  passed  with  the  bill  still  held  in 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Insurance.  The  committee's 
regular  meeting  night  was  Thursday. 

On  Thursday,  March  20,  when  the  committee  met, 
the  Rating  Schedule  bill  was  crowded  aside  by  other 
matters.  On  Thursday,  March  27,  the  committee  did 

182  Mr.  Ryan's  appearance  Jn  the  interest  of  the  insurance 
people  caused  much  comment.  In  addition  to  heading  the  State 
organization  of  the  dominant  faction  of  the  Legislature,  Mr. 
Ryan  was  at  the  same  time  an  employee  of  the  State,  being 
attorney  for  the  State  Board  of  Harbor  Commissioners  at  a 
salary  of  J2400  a  year. 


Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill          203 

not  meet  for  want  of  quorum.  It  was  not  until  the 
night  of  Thursday,  April  3,  that  the  committee  was 
able  to  take  the  measure  up. 

Mr.  Coogan  and  Mr.  Ryan,  on  behalf  of  the  under- 
writers, asked  further  delay,  on  the  ground  that  they 
wished  to  bring  their  people  from  San  Francisco  to  ap- 
pear against  the  measure.  They  also  made  objection  to 
the  measure's  wording.  On  every  point  raised,  however, 
the  supporters  of  the  bill  expressed  themselves  as  willing 
to  concede  any  correction  of  real  or  fancied  weakness ; 
they  were  willing,  they  said,  to  accept  any  amendment 
Mr.  Coogan  might  suggest  to  make  clearer  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill,  or  to  strengthen  it.  They  insisted, 
however,  that  they  would  not  accept  amendments  to 
weaken  the  measure,  or  to  "kill"  it.  They  even  agreed 
to  work  with  Mr.  Coogan  in  preparing  amendments. 

Coogan  had  claimed  that  the  bill  not  only  required 
the  filing  of  rate  formula,  but  gave  the  commission 
power  to  fix  rates. 

The  supporters  of  the  bill  replied  that  it  was  not 
their  intention  to  make  any  such  provision,  and  that 
if  the  language  of  the  bill  indicated  such  powers,  they 
would  accept  amendments  to  make  the  Commissioner's 
limitations  absolutely  clear.  They  warned  the  op- 
ponents of  the  bill,  however,  that  if  reasonable  State 
supervision  of  rate-making  were  not  accepted,  the  State 
would  eventually  be  forced  to  provide  machinery  for 
State-making  of  rates. 

Coogan  had  complained  that  in  the  event  of  an  in- 
sured protesting  against  a  rate,  the  bill  required  the 
Commission  to  give  notice  to  all  parties  at  interest, 
but  did  not  specifically  mention  underwriters. 


204          Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill 

The  bill's  supporters  expressed  themselves  as  willing 
to  accept  amendments  to  meet  this  alleged  weakness. 

Coogan  took  the  position,  however,  that  the  measure 
could  not  be  improved  to  make  it  satisfactory.  He  in- 
sisted that  he  wanted  his  San  Francisco  people  to  be 
heard.  But  he  could  not  himself  appear  before  the 
committee  again  until  the  following  Monday.  It  was 
finally  decided  that  the  hearing  should  be  had  the  fol- 
lowing Tuesday,  April  8. 

At  that  time,  the  popular  belief  was  that  the  Legis- 
lature would  adjourn  toward  the  end  of  April.  The 
proponents  of  the  bill  became  alarmed  lest  continued 
delays  might  result  in  Senate  or  Assembly,  or  both,  not 
being  given  opportunity  to  vote  upon  it.  Kehoe,  author 
of  the  bill,  insisted  that  the  measure,  without  further 
delay,  be  returned  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  it  "do  pass,"  to  be  amended,  if  necessary,  on 
the  Senate  floor.  A  compromise  was  finally  reached  by 
which  the  bill  was  returned  to  the  Senate  without 
recommendation,  with  the  understanding  that  after  it 
had  been  read  the  second  time  in  the  Senate,  it  was  to 
be  returned  to  the  committee  for  amendment,  with  the 
proviso  that  it  was  to  retain  its  place  on  the  Senate 
file. 

The  suggested  procedure,  to  put  it  mildly,  was  not 
provided  in  the  Senate  rules.  The  proponents  of  the 
bill  didn't  ivant  it.  They  wanted  the  bill  returned  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass,  to  be  amended,  if 
necessary,  on  the  Senate  floor,  a  procedure  which  was 
entirely  regular.  But  to  get  it  out  of  committee  at  all 
they  were  compelled  to  accept  the  compromise. 

In  the  Senate  the  following  day,  however,  the  irreg- 


Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill          205 

ularity  of  the  committee's  action  gave  the  opponents  of 
the  bill  basis  of  a  demand  that  the  measure  be  returned 
to  the  committee  forthwith.  Senator  Wright  moved  that 
the  bill  be  re-referred  to  the  committee.  Senator  Boyn- 
ton  supported  Wright's  motion.  Boynton  and  Wright 
unquestionably  had  foundation  for  their  contention  that 
the  proposed  procedure  was  not  in  accordance  with  the 
governing  Senate  rules.  But  the  Senate  was  clearly  in 
a  mood  to  make  exception  in  this  particular  instance. 

Kehoe,  however,  on  the  understanding  that  the  In- 
surance Committee  consider  the  bill,  and  act  upon  it  the 
following  Tuesday  night,  and  that  nothing  be  done  to 
delay  its  consideration  by  the  Senate,  consented  that  the 
measure  should  be  returned  to  the  committee. 

And  when  the  following  Tuesday  night  came,  the 
committee  did  not  take  action  on  the  Kehoe  Rating 
Schedule  bill. 

The  committee  did,  however,  meet  to  hear  arguments 
for  and  against  the  bill. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  offered  the  amendments 
which  had  been  suggested  at  previous  meetings,  to  meet 
the  objections  which  had  been  raised  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  underwriters.183  But  Mr.  Coogan,  to  whom 

iss  The  representatives  of  the  underwriters  particularly  ob- 
jected to  sections  3  and  4  of  the  bill.  These  sections  read: 

Sec.  3.  To  secure  uniformity  in  such  rating  schedules,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  insurance  commissioner  to  furnish  each  com- 
pany and  each  rating  bureau  a  classification  of  risks  and  table 
of  hazards,  which  shall  be  used  as  a  basis  of  such  rating  sched- 
ules. All  risks  shall  be  classified  in  the  manner  as  provided  by 
the  insurance  commissioner  and  the  Insurance  commissioner  may 
refuse  to  accept  for  filing  any  rating  schedule  upon  a  different 
classification  or  which  is  indefinite  or  which  may  permit  dis- 
crimination in  rates  on  similar  properties.  No  company  shall  use 
more  than  one  rating  schedule  in  the  determination  of  its  rates. 

Sec.  4.  Any  rate  or  charge  for  such  insurance  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  review  before  the  insurance  commissioner  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  any  property  owner  or  other  insured  affected  thereby. 


206          Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill 

a  draft  of  the  proposed  amendments  had  been  submit- 
ted, not  only  rejected  them,  but  refused  to  submit  any 
amendments  himself.  The  position  of  the  underwriters 
on  this  score  was  expressed  by  R.  W.  Osborne,  a  San 
Francisco  insurance  man,  who  stated  he  opposed  the 
bill  because  he  regarded  it  as  fundamentally  wrong. 
He  announced  his  opposition  to  any  measure  which 
might  prevent  insurance  companies  making  any  contract 
they  want  to,  and  fixing  the  rates  they  charge. 

Insurance  Commissioner  Cooper,  who  spoke  for  the 
bill,  contended  that  under  the  terms  of  the  measure  the 
Insurance  Commissioner  would  not  fix  rates ;  that  his 
authority  would  extend  no  further  than  to  see  that  the 
rates  fixed  by  the  companies  were  extended  to  all  alike, 
without  discrimination  between  persons  or  between 
places. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  hearing,  the  committee,  on 
the  plea  of  Senators  Wright  and  Tyrrell  of  the  lateness 
of  the  hour,  adjourned  until  the  following  evening  with- 
out taking  action  on  the  bill. 

The  committee,  when  it  met  the  following  evening, 
went  into  partial  executive  session.  Representatives  of 
the  press  and  the  general  public  were  excluded  from 
the  room.  The  exception  was  made,  however,  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Coogan,  the  representative  of  the  fire  un- 

Upon  such  application,  notice  of  hearing  shall  be  given  to  such 
persons  interested  as  may  be  given  by  the  order  of  the  insurance 
commissioner  and  the  questions  to  be  passed  upon  shall  be: 
Whether  the  schedule  has  been  correctly  applied  to  the  risk  and 
whether  the  use  of  any  schedule,  including  any  basis  used  for 
making  rates,  is  discriminatory  as  between  different  localities 
within  the  State.  If  it  be  found  that  the  rate  has  not  been 
correctly  applied  to  the  risk  or  that  the  rate  or  schedule  filed  is 
discriminatory,  the  insurance  commissioner  shall  fix  and  order 
substituted  therefor  such  rate  as  shall  be  proper  or  such  schedule 
as  shall  not  be  discriminatory  and  such  rate  shall  be  put  into 
effect  by  the  company  or  rating  bureau  as  directed  in  such  order. 


Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill          207 

derwriters.  Mr.  Coogan  remained  with  the  committee 
behind  locked  doors,  when  the  measure  was  given  its 
final  committee  consideration. 

Senator  Curtin  expressed  himself  as  in  favor  of  the 
principles  of  the  bill,  but  he  stated  he  had  serious  mis- 
givings of  what  the  effect  of  its  passage  would  be. 
Before  acting  upon  it,  he  wanted  to  convince  himself 
that  its  passage  would  not  throw  a  considerable  part  of 
the  work  of  the  Insurance  Commissioner  into  the  State 
Railroad  Commission.  Senator  Curtin  counseled  delay 
for  a  day  or  so  that  the  point  might  be  determined. 

Senator  Wright  joined  Senator  Curtin  in  these  grave 
misgivings,  also  joining  with  Senator  Curtin  in  suggest- 
ing to  Kehoe  that  committee  action  be  delayed  for  a 
little  that  the  bill  might  go  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
with  favorable  recommendation. 

Everybody  who  knew  anything  about  the  work  of 
the  session  knew  that  the  repeated  delays,  not  only  on 
the  Kehoe  Rating  Schedule  bill,  but  on  scores  of  others, 
regardless  of  the  motives  of  those  responsible  for  them, 
were  to  result  in  congestion  at  the  close  of  the  session. 
Perhaps  Kehoe  had  visions  of  his  measure  caught  in 
the  confusion  of  the  session's  close.  At  any  rate,  in 
spite  of  the  advice  of  Wright  and  Curtin,  Kehoe  urged 
that  the  measure  be  acted  upon  without  further  delay. 

A  motion  was  made  to  report  the  bill  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass.  This 
motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  three  to  four.184 

Kehoe  was  defeated.    But  there  was  one  more  move 


184  The  vote  was: 

To   report  the   bill  back — Beban,    Bryant,    Gates — 3. 

Not  to  report  the  bill  back — Cogswell,  Curtin,  Tyrrell,  Wright — i. 


208          Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill 

he  could  make.  He  could  have  the  bill  sent  back  to  the 
Senate  zvith  the  recommendation  that  it  do  not  pass.195 
And  such  action  Senator  Kehoe  urged  in  order  that  the 
Senate  might  be  given  early  opportunity  to  act  upon  the 
measure. 

A  motion  to  that  end  prevailed.  The  bill  was  sent 
back  to  the  Senate  with  suggested  amendments,  and 
recommendation  that  it  be  defeated.  Senator  Bryant, 
chairman  of  the  Insurance  Committee,  filed  a  minority 
report  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  bill  be  passed 
as  amended. 

In  this  way,  Senator  Kehoe  succeeded  in  having  his 
bill  returned  to  the  Senate  as  early  as  April  10,  some- 
thing more  than  a  month  after  the  opening  of  the  sec- 
ond part  of  the  session.  The  bill  had  been  referred  to 
the  committee  on  January  28.  Twelve  days  passed  after 
the  measure  had  been  sent  back  to  the  Senate  before  it 
came  up  for  final  vote. 

Kehoe  opened  the  debate  for  the  measure's  passage. 
Without  heat  he  charged  that  for  months  an  exten- 
sive lobby  had  been  systematically  misrepresenting  the 
measure. 

"The  members  have  been  deceived  by  the  lobby," 
said  Kehoe,  "into  the  belief  that  this  bill  is  a  Rate- 
Making  act.  It  is  not  a  Rate-Making  act.  No  man 
misrepresents  a  measure  when  a  good  argument  can 
be  brought  against  it.  If  legitimate  argument  can  be 
used  against  it,  misrepresentation  is  unnecessary." 


iss  This  course  was  sometimes  resorted  to  by  the  "anti-ma- 
chine" members  when  the  "machine"  element  dominated  the  com- 
mittees. At  the  1909  session,  for  example,  the  Local  Option  bill 
was  forced  out  of  the  Senate  Election  Laws  Committee  in  this 
way.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  page  187. 


Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill          209 

"The  question  before  this  Senate  is,"  said  Kehoe, 
"whether  the  Senate  is  to  stand  by  the  Fire  Under- 
writers, or  by  The  People  of  the  State  of  California." 

Senator  Juilliard  proceeded  to  question  Kehoe  on 
the  assumption  that  Kehoe  was  a  member  of  the  Insur- 
ance Committee.  Kehoe  listened  to  him  patiently  for 
a  time. 

"I  am  not  a  member  of  that  Committee,  Senator 
Juilliard,"  said  Kehoe  mildly.  "You  are  mistaken  as 
you  not  infrequently  are." 

Juilliard  sat  down. 

Senator  Larkins  asked  Kehoe  if  the  passage  of  the 
bill  would  not  result  in  an  insurance  trust,  with  but  one 
rate,  which  would  work  to  the  injury  of  The  People. 

Kehoe  pointed  to  the  rear  of  the  Senate  Chamber, 
filled  with  the  lobbyists  who  were  at  Sacramento  op- 
posing the  measure. 

"That  is  my  answer,"  said  Kehoe.  "The  Board  of 
Fire  Underwriters  is  represented  here  by  a  powerful 
lobby.  The  Board  companies  make  the  insurance  trust. 
If  the  bill  were  calculated  to  give  them  monopoly, 
would  they  be  here  opposing  it?" 

Larkins  voted  for  the  bill. 

Senator  Cohn  objected  to  the  bill  on  the  ground  that 
it  would  do  away  with  the  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters. 

Kehoe  pointed  out  that  the  measure  contained  no 
such  provision. 

And  so  for  hours  the  debate  went  on. 

For  a  time  the  fate  of  the  bill  seemed  to  hang  on 
the  question  whether  or  not  it  had  the  support  of  the 
California  State  Association  of  Local  Fire  Insurance 


210          Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill 

Agents.  The  question  was  set  at  rest  by  Senator 
Strobridge,  who  read  a  letter  from  M.  G.  Callaghan, 
Chairman  of  the  association's  Legislative  Committee, 
in  which  Mr.  Callaghan  stated  his  association  was  ab- 
solutely opposed  to  the  bill.186  Senator  Strobridge 
had  introduced  the  association's  measures.  His  words, 
backed  by  Mr.  Callaghan's  letter,  carried  weight.  The 
denial  of  the  association's  support  of  the  bill  was  the 
most  telling  point  made  against  it.  The  measure  failed 
of  passage  by  a  vote  of  18  to  18.18T 

A  majority  of  the  Senate  had  not  voted  against  the 
bill.  To  be  sure  it  lacked  three  votes  of  the  Senate 
majority  of  twenty-one  necessary  for  its  passage.  But 
four  members — Boynton,  Cartwright,  Cassidy  and  San- 
ford — had  not  voted.  The  votes  of  three  of  the  four 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  pass  the  measure.  In 
addition,  after  the  vote  had  been  taken,  the  supporters 
of  the  bill  gathered  convincing  data  of  the  support  of 

186  Compare  this  statement  with  footnotes  176,  177,  179  and  181, 
Chapter  XIV.  Mr.  Callaghan's  letter  to  Senator  Strobridge  was  in 
full  as  follows: 

"Sacramento,   Calif.,  April  17,   1913. 

"Hon.  E.  K.  Strobridge,  Senate  Chamber,  Sacramento,  Cal.  My 
Dear  Senator: — It  has  come  to  my  attention  that  a  rumor  is 
in  circulation  to  the  effect  that  the  California  State  Association 
of  Local  Fire  Insurance  Agents  is  in  favor  of  Senate  Bill  896.  As 
you  have  Introduced  the  bills  for  the  State  Association  it  is  due 
you  to  know  that  the  above  rumor  is  absolutely  without  founda- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  the  California  State  Association  is  abso- 
lutely opposed  to  Senate  Bill  896,  and  we  believe  its  adoption 
would  result  in  injury  to  our  association. 

"With  best  personal  regards,  I  am 

"Yours  very   truly,   M.    G.   Callaghan,    Chairman   Legislative   Com- 
mittee,   State  Association  of  Local  Fire   Insurance  Agents." 

is?  The  vote  by  which  the  Kehoe  Rating  Schedule  Bill  (Senate 
Bill  896)  was  refused  passage  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler, 
Caminettl,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones, 
Kehoe,  Larkins,  Shanahan,  Thompson — 18. 

Against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall,  Breed,  Campbell,  Conn,  Cur- 
tin,  Finn,  Flint,  Hans,  Juilliard,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens,  Regan,  Rush. 
Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Wright— 18. 


Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill          21 1 

the  California  State  Association  of  Local  Fire  Insur- 
ance Agents,  to  offset  the  effective  argument  made  by 
Senator  Strobridge  that  the  association  was  unquali- 
fiedly in  opposition  to  the  bill. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  bill's  opponents  insisted  that 
the  issue  had,  by  the  Senate's  partial  vote,  been  settled. 
It  may  be  noted  in  this  connection  that  had  the  bill 
been  passed,  the  insurance  lobby,  and  the  lobby's  sup- 
port on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  would  have  exhausted 
every  parliamentary  move  to  get  reconsideration  and 
secure  defeat.  The  old  machine  never  abandoned  a 
fight  so  long  as  chance  remained.188  The  new  lobby 
adopts  the  same  policy,  a  policy  which  it  would  deny 
to  its  opposition,  as  the  machine  used  to  deny  it.  But 
Kehoe  could  see  no  good  reason  for  quitting  the  fight 
until  his  last  parliamentary  recourse  had  been  exhausted. 

Kehoe  accordingly  joined  with  Senator  Gerdes  of 
San  Francisco  in  a  coup  which  caught  the  insurance 
lobby  off  its  guard,  and  for  a  time  made  it  possible  that 
the  Insurance  Rating  Schedule  bill  would  be  passed. 

The  Sullivan  anti-Insurance  Trust  bill  (Senate  Bill 
122,  introduced  by  Gerdes)  was,  at  the  time  the  Kehoe 
bill  was  defeated,  pending  before  the  Senate  on  a  rec- 
ommendation from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Insurance 
that  the  Senate  defeat  it.  When  this  measure  came  up 
in  the  Senate  on  third  reading,  Gerdes  offered  certain 
amendments,  which  were  adopted  and  the  amended  bill 
sent  to  the  printer. 

When  the  insurance  lobby  examined  those  amend- 

188  The  "machine's"  fight  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill  In 
1909  illustrates  this  very  well.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Leg- 
islature of  1909,"  Chapter  XI,  page  112. 


212          Defeat  of  Kehoe  Rating  Bill 

ments,  the  discovery  was  made  that  the  Sullivan  bill  as 
amended  was  identical  with  the  Kehoe  Insurance  Rating 
Schedule  bill. 

This  move  kept  the  insurance  lobby  anxious-faced 
and  active  for  the  remainder  of  the  session.  But  with 
the  crush  of  other  legislative  business,  the  proponents 
of  the  measure  could  not  take  advantage  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  amended  Sullivan  bill  did  not  come  to  vote. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE    ALIEN    LAND    BILLS. 

At  the  1912  general  elections,  the  Democrats  in  Cali- 
fornia went  before  The  People  pledged  to  a  policy  of 
Asiatic  exclusion,  and  to  enactment  of  a  State  law  to 
bar  aliens  not  eligible  to  citizenship  from  owning  land 
in  the  State.  This  pledge  the  Democrats  gave  promi- 
nent place  in  their  platform.189  They  made  the  subject 
one  of  the  most  emphasized  issues  before  the  State. 
Much  of  their  most  effective  campaign  literature  19°  was 
based  upon  it. 


189  The  California  State  Democratic  platform  for  1912  contained 
the  following1  antl- Asiatic  plank: 

"We  demand  immediate  Federal  legislation  for  the  exclusion 
of  Japanese,  Korean  and  Hindu  laborers,  and  impose  on  our  can- 
didates for  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  the  duty  of  working  for  that 
end  by  legislation,  resolutions  and  all  other  honorable  means  open 
to  them  as  State  legislators.  We  favor  the  passage  of  a  bill  that 
will  prevent  any  alien  not  eligible  to  citizenship  from  owning  land 
in  the  State  of  California." 

190  A   card   issued   by  the   California   Democratic    State   Central 
Committee,   and   distributed   throughout  the    State   in   great   quan- 
tities  purported    to   show    the    difference    in    attitude    of    Woodrow 
Wilson   and   Theodore   Roosevelt  on   the   Japanese   issue.     On   one 
side  the  card  was  printed: 

"WILSON  AND   THE   JAPANESE 

"Woodrow  Wilson  is  for  exclusion  of  the  Japanese  from  the 
United  States.  On  May  3,  1912,  he  said: 

"  'In  the  matter  of  Chinese  and  Japanese  coolie  immigration  I 
stand  for  the  national  policy  of  exclusion.  The  whole  question  is 
one  of  assimilation  of  diverse  races.  We  cannot  make  a  homo- 
geneous population  out  of  a  people  who  do  not  blend  with  the 
Caucasian  race.  Their  lower  standard  of  living  as  laborers  will 
crowd  out  the  white  agriculturist  and  is,  in  other  fields,  a  most 
serious  industrial  menace.  The  success  of  free  democratic  in- 
stitutions demands  of  our  people  education,  intelligence  and  pa- 
triotism and  the  State  should  protect  them  against  unjust  and  im- 
possible competition.  Remunerative  labor  Is  the  basis  of  content- 
ment. Democracy  rests  on  the  equality  of  the  citizen.  Oriental 


214  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Progressive  Republicans,  al- 
though they  had  been  to  the  fore  at  previous  sessions 
in  efforts  to  secure  the  passage  of  alien  land  laws,191 
made  no  mention  in  their  1912  platform  of  the  anti- 
Asiatic  issue.  Thus,  while  the  Democratic  members  of 
both  Houses  were  definitely  bound  by  their  platform  to 
enact  a  law  that  would  "prevent  any  alien  not  eligible 
to  citizenship  from  owning  land  in  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia," the  Progressives  were  bound  by  no  such  plat- 
form obligation. 

Many  of  the  Progressives,  however,  were  generally 
regarded  as  obligated  by  personal  pledge  or  implied  un- 
derstanding that  they  were  to  lend  their  best  efforts  to 


coolieism   will   give   us   another  race   problem    to   solve   and   surely 
we  have  had  our  lesson.'     OVER." 

On  the  reverse  side  appeared: 

"ROOSEVELT  AND  THE  JAPANESE. 

"Roosevelt  believes  the  Japanese  should  be  made  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  In  his  message  to  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress 
he  said: 

"  'I  recommend  to  the  Congress  an  act  be  passed  specifically 
providing  for  the  naturalization  of  Japanese  who  come  here  in- 
tending to  become  American  citizens.' 

"Roosevelt  believes  the  Japanese  should  be  allowed  to  overrun 
the  lands  of  California.  He  demanded  of  the  State  Legislature 
that  it  enact  no  laws  denying  Japanese  the  right  to  acquire  title 
to  land. 

"Roosevelt  demanded  that  grown  Japanese  men  should  be  al- 
lowed to  mingle  in  the  public  schools  with  white  boys  and  girls  of 
tender  years.  When  the  people  of  San  Francisco  and  California 
protested  he  threatened  them  with  'all  of  the  forces,  military 
and  civil,  of  the  United  States.' 

"Roosevelt  in  his  message  to  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress  de- 
manded that  the  American  people  accept  the  Japanese  immigrants 
'on  a  basis  of  full  and  frank  equality.'  OVER." 

191  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  page  202, 
and  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  342.  At 
the  1909  session,  Assemblyman  A.  M.  Drew  of  Fresno  headed  the 
fight  for  the  passage  of  an  Alien  Land  bill.  His  measure  was 
defeated  through  the  opposition  of  the  then  dominant  machine 
organization.  At  the  1011  session,  with  the  Progressives  in  con- 
trol, an  Alien  Land  bill  passed  the  Senate.  It  failed  of  passage 
in  the  Assembly,  largely  because  of  the  opposition  of  the  so-called 
Asiatic  Exclusion  league  (See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature 
of  1911,"  footnote  386,  page  344),  and  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Ex- 
position Company.  See  footnote  383,  page  342,  of  the  1911  story. 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  215 

do  what  other  Legislatures  had  failed  to  do;  namely, 
pass  a  law  that  would  bar  alien-Asiatics  from  ownership 
of  the  soil.192 

But  a  third  politician  force — in  a  way  more  potent 
than  either  the  party  organizations,  is  at  work  in  Cali- 
fornia, with  an  influence  more  far-reaching  than  many 
realize — the  Panama-Pacific  International  Exposition 
Company.  The  company  has  been  "in  politics"  ever 

192  Chester  H.  Rowell,  in  The  California  Outlook  for  April  26, 
1913,  stated  that  the  menace  of  Japanese  land  ownership  in  Cali- 
fornia is  not  a  present  fact  but  a  fear  of  the  future. 

"On  the  general  situation,"  said  Mr.  Rowell,  "it  may  be  as- 
serted unconditionally  that  the  menace  of  Japanese  ownership  in 
California  is  not  a  present  fact,  but  is  a  fear  of  the  future.  We 
have  Just  next  door,  in  Hawaii,  an  object  lesson  of  what  general 
Japanese  settlement  in  California  would  mean,  and  probably  the 
people  of  California,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  large  land 
owners  and  the  anti-union  employers,  are  unanimous  that  such  a 
condition  must  be  prevented  in  California  at  no  matter  what 
cost.  But  the  intense  interest  aroused  in  the  whole  proposal  is 
based  upon  this  imaginative  picture  of  what  some  day  might  hap- 
pen, rather  than  upon  any  present  facts  of  what  has  happened. 

"The  Japanese  have  invaded  California,  Indeed,  and  have  prac- 
tically monopolized  one  of  its  principal  occupations.  They  con- 
stitute a  dominant  element  in  the  migratory  farm  labor  of  Cali- 
fornia. Practically  all  the  berries,  most  of  the  vegetables,  more 
than  half  of  the  grapes,  and  one-third  of  the  citrus  and  decidu- 
ous fruits  of  California  are  produced  by  Japanese  labor.  If  there 
be  any  invasion,  this  is  where  it  is,  but  there  seems  to  be  almost 
no  agitation  against  this  real  displacement  of  our  own  race  from 
an  important  industry. 

"Of  the  55,000  Japanese  in  California,  20,000  have  no  other  oc- 
cupation than  that  of  migratory  farm  laborers.  At  least  20,000 
more  work  occasionally  in  these  tasks.  Japanese  immigration  has 
almost  without  objection  revolutionized  this  Industry,  and  if  the 
Japanese  were  by  any  means  to  be  excluded  from  it,  which  ap- 
parently no  one  proposes,  it  would  require  the  unmaking  of  this 
revolution. 

"In  the  case  of  land-holding  the  situation  is  exactly  the  re- 
verse. Here,  instead  of  dominating  anything,  the  Japanese  are 
•practically  a  negligible  quantity.  In  two  or  three  very  limited 
neighborhoods  they  have  so  far  invaded  the  country  that  white 
men  are  moving  out.  This  is  a  picture  in  miniature  of  what 
might  happen  if  there  were  any  wholesale  and  continued  Japa- 
nese immigration  into  this  country,  and  is  sufficient  justification 
for  preventing  at  any  cost  such  a  result." 

Mr.  Rowell  is  editor  of  the  Fresno  "Republican."  He  has  for 
years  made  a  self-sacrificing  fight  for  clean  conditions — political, 
moral  and  industrial — in  California.  It  was  largely  under  his 
leadership  that  the  successful  fight  of  1910  against  the  Southern 
Pacific  political  machine  was  carried  on.  For  fifteen  years.  Mr. 
Rowell  has  been  a  student  of  California  conditions.  None  is  better 
prepared  to  speak  upon  the  Japanese  problem  than  he. 


216  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

since  its  organization.  In  1910,  an  extraordinary  ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature  was  called  for  its  benefit,  the 
expenses  of  which  the  Exposition  management  paid.193 
But  as  the  Legislature  submitted  constitutional  amend- 
ments to  the  electors  to  place  a  $5,000,000  tax  upon  the 
State  for  the  benefit  of  the  Exposition,  and  authorized 
San  Francisco  to  bond  itself  for  $5,000,000  in  addition 
for  the  Exposition's  benefit,  the  Exposition  may  be  re- 
garded as  having  made  a  very  profitable  investment  in 
its  legislative  session. 

To  secure  the  ratification  of  those  constitutional 
amendments,  the  Exposition  management  conducted  a 
very  effective  publicity  campaign  which  carried  its  work 
into  every  county  of  the  State. 

Few,  if  any,  who  have  followed  the  Exposition's 
work  will  question  its  political  importance.  At  the  1911 
session,  the  Exposition's  influence  was  thrown  against 
the  passage  of  the  Alien  Land  bill  of  that  year.  In  1913, 
even  before  the  session  opened,  the  Exposition  man- 
agement exerted  itself,  not  only  to  secure  the  defeat  of 
such  legislation,  but  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  bills 
dealing  with  it.  Previous  to  the  opening  of  the  session, 
no  organization  of  importance  could  endorse  policies  of 
anti-Asiatic  legislation  without  the  organization's  officials 
receiving  more  or  less  secret,  but  none  the  less  effective, 
protest  from  the  Exposition  people.  In  this  way,  due 
to  the  hold  which  the  Exposition  has  on  San  Francisco 


193  The  Exposition  Company  refunded  to  the  State  $11,807.35, 
as  the  expenses  of  the  extraordinary  session.  As  a  result  of  the 
session,  the  Exposition  Company  received  $10,000,000,  raised  by 
bond  issue  at  San  Francisco,  and  by  direct  tax  upon  The  People 
of  the  State. 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  217 

and  the  State,  much  agitation  for  anti-Asiatic  legislation 
was  blocked. 

When  the  legislators  met  at  Sacramento,  but  before 
any  bills  had  been  introduced,  a  powerful  lobby,  repre- 
senting the  Exposition,  with  President  C.  C.  Moore  of 
the  Exposition  Company  at  its  head,  appeared  at  Sacra- 
mento to  urge  that  the  various  factions  in  the  Legisla- 
ture bind  themselves  not  to  countenance  the  introduction 
of  anti-Asiatic  bills,  and  that  the  various  members  bind 
themselves  not  to  introduce  such  measures. 

The  request  was  made  on  the  ground  that  even  the 
introduction  of  such  measures  would  "hurt  the  Exposi- 
tion."194 

In  making  this  somewhat  unusual  request,  President 
Moore,  and  the  Exposition  employees  working  with 
him,  stated  that  the  San  Francisco  newspapers  195  would 

19*  The  cry,  "The  Exposition  will  be  Injured"  if  you  do  this  or 
that,  was  more  effective  two  or  three  years  ago  than  it  was  when 
the  1913  Legislature  convened.  California  had,  by  the  time  of  the 
opening  1913  session,  tired  of  continued  reference  to  possible  injury 
to  the  Exposition.  When  Hiram  Johnson  was  a  candidate  for 
Governor,  the  State  was  told  that  the  Exposition  would  be  injured, 
if  Johnson  were  elected.  When  San  Francisco  attempted  to  secure 
district  local  option  to  give  the  people  of  the  residence  district  of 
that  city  opportunity  to  say  at  the  polls  whether  they  wanted 
saloons  in  their  neighborhood,  San  Francisco  was  told  that  such  a 
provision  in  the  law  would  hurt  the  Exposition.  When  amend- 
ments to  the  San  Francisco  Charter  were  proposed,  under  which 
the  traction  monopoly  at  that  city  would  be  able  to  tighten  its 
grip  upon  the  community,  the  argument  was  advanced,  if  these 
amendments  be  not  ratified  the  Exposition  will  suffer. 

"Are  you  for  the  Exposition"?  was  asked  a  citizen  who  had 
questioned  some  of  the  Exposition  management's  policies. 

"I'm  for  the  Exposition,"  he  replied,  "if  it  does  not  cost  us 
too  much.  With  Ben  Franklin,  I'm  opposed  to  paying  too  dearly 
for  my  whistle." 

195  Although  during  those  first  days  of  the  session,  the  anti- 
Asiatic  legislation  issue  was  the  most  vital  at  Sacramento,  and  the 
one  in  which  The  People  of  California  were  most  interested,  the" 
San  Francisco  papers  gave  it  little  or  no  attention.  It  was  no- 
torious at  Sacramento  that  correspondents  for  San  Francisco  pa- 
pers had  been  given  to  understand  there  was  an  embargo  on  news 
regarding  the  anti- Asiatic  bills.  On  January  20,  however,  after  th« 
mission  of  the  Exposition  lobby  had  failed,  word  reached  Sacra- 
mento that  the  embargo  on  Asiatic  news  had  been  lifted,  and  that 


2i 8  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

make  no  mention  of  the  fact  that  no  anti-Asiatic  meas- 
ures had  been  introduced.  They  stated  further  that 
San  Francisco  labor  organization  leaders  would  be  thor- 
oughly in  accord  with  a  policy  of  inaction. 

Of  the  three  factions  in  the  Legislature,  the  Reac- 
tionary Republicans,  being  the  last  remnant  of  the  old 
"machine"  element,  were  thoroughly  in  accord  with  the 
Exposition  management.  Mr.  Moore  and  his  associates 
accordingly  devoted  their  attention  to  the  Progressive 
Republicans  and  the  Democrats. 

The  Progressive  Republicans  were  addressed  by  Mr. 
Moore  at  one  meeting  and  the  Democrats  at  another. 
Practically  the  same  representations  were  made  on  each 
occasion.  The  burden  of  Mr.  Moore's  talk  was  that  the 
keystone  of  the  Exposition  management's  work  in  inter- 
esting Europe  in  the  Exposition  is  the  trade  of  the 
Orient,  the  prize  of  the  world.  Anti-Asiatic  legislation 
would  offend  China  and  Japan.  The  mere  introduction 
of  measures  which  could  be  construed  as  hostile  to 
Asiatics  would  offend  them.  Without  the  hearty  sup- 
port of  China  and  Japan,  the  Exposition  would,  Mr. 
Moore  insisted,  in  spite  of  its  enormous  fund — $17,500,- 
000 — be  a  failure.  For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Moore  con- 


the  correspondents  were  free  to  send  articles  dealing  with  the  sit- 
uation. 

The  interior  press,  as  a  general  thing,  did  not  suppress  the 
anti-Asiatic  news.  The  Exposition  people  did  try,  however,  to 
influence  interior  papers.  Many  of  the  larger  of  them,  while  con- 
tinuing to  publish  the  news,  instructed  their  correspondents  not 
to  use  the  terms  anti-Japanese  or  anti-Asiatic,  but  to  limit  them- 
selves to  anti-alien. 

Exposition  officials  stated  at  the  discussions  of  the  attitude  of 
the  San  Francisco  press  that  the  San  Francisco  press  was  pledged 
to  publish  nothing  that  would  in  any  way  reflect  upon,  or  injure, 
the  Exposition. 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  219 

tended,  anti-Asiatic  legislation  should  be  postponed  until 
danger  of  injury  to  the  Exposition  had  passed.19* 

At  the  Democratic  meeting,  President  Moore  stated 
Progressive  leaders  had  told  him  that  if  the  Democrats 
would  hold  off  on  anti-Asiatic  legislation,  the  Progres- 
sives would  also,  but  that  should  the  Democrats  insist 
upon  introducing  anti-Asiatic  measures,  the  bars  would 
be  down,  as  the  Progressives  would  then  introduce  such 
measures  also. 

"You  will  see,  gentlemen,"  said  President  Moore, 
"that  you  are  the  jury  before  which  the  fate  of  the  Ex- 
position is  to  be  decided." 

The  Democrats  present  were  clearly  impressed  by 
President  Moore's  statements,  but  they  were  not  pre- 
pared to  accord  with  his  request. 

"If  I  neglect  this  matter,"  said  Bradford  of  Sacra- 
mento county,  "I'll  be  literally  tarred  and  feathered  in 
my  district." 

President  Moore  eagerly  offered  to  send  men  into 
the  several  legislative  districts  to  secure  expressions  of 


196  Of  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  these  measures  upon  the 
Panama-Pacific  Exposition,  The  Sacramento  Bee  In  its  issue  of 
March  20,  1913,  said: 

"But  the  question  is  not  so  much  what  attitude  Japan  may 
or  may  not  assume  toward  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition,  as  what 
position  the  State  of  California  should  take  upon  a  problem  which 
confronts  her  people. 

"If  the  alien-land  measures  now  before  the  California  Legis- 
lature are  just  and  right,  proper  and  righteous,  in  the  interest  of 
The  People  and  conducive  to  the  general  welfare,  they  should  be 
passed.  If  they  are  not,  they  should  be  voted  down. 

"If  they  are  just  and  right,  proper  and  righteous,  in  the  in- 
terest of  The  People  and  conducive  to  the  general  welfare,  they 
should  not  be  smothered  now,  to  be  revived  and  passed  after  the 
Exposition  is  over. 

"That  would  be  a  shameful  insult.  It  would  be  playing  the 
part  of  treachery.  It  would  be  a  smile  in  the  face  until  1915,  and 
a  knife  in  the  back  after  that. 

"Nothing  could  deserve  condemnation  more  than  that." 


220  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

prominent  men  against  consideration  of  anti-Asiatic  leg- 
islation at  the  1913  session.197 

But  Senator  Caminetti,  who  was  presiding,  prompt- 
ly told  President  Moore  that  if  the  Exposition  attempted 
any  such  thing  in  his  district,  he  (Caminetti)  would 
regard  it  as  a  personal  affront. 


i»7  The  plain  citizen  would  be  astonished  could  he  know  the 
amount  of  this  sort  of  work  there  was  done.  The  following  is  one 
of  hundreds — if  not  thousands — of  letters  received  by  members  of 
the  Legislature  during  those  early  days  of  the  season: 

"Hon.  ,  Sacramento,  Dear  :  I  have  had  letters 

and  wires  from  a  number  of  our  banker  friends  asking  that  you 
be  requested  to  delay  presenting  your  anti-alien  land-holding  bill 
until  the  Japanese  government  closes  its  arrangements  for  an  ex- 
hibit at  San  Francisco,  in  any  event,  that  you  delay  it  as  long  as 
you  can  consistently. 

"My  own  views  on  the  subject,  as  on  nearly  all  subjects  as 
you  full  well  know,  are  nihil.  These  people  who  write  me  are  good 
friends  and  influential  men — and  I  cannot  in  courtesy  do  less  than 
present  the  matter  to  you.  Having  heard  your  pre-election  pro- 
nouncements with  mine  own  ears,  I  know  that  it  is  impossible  for 
you  to  alter  your  views  or  attitude  toward  the  Jap  question  itself. 
Whether  you  can  delay  action  until  a  later  date  more  consistent 
with  diplomacy  is  a  question  between  yourself  and  your  own  con- 
science— a  devil  of  a  territory  to  occupy,  beleeve  me. 

"Doubtless  you  have  had  this  matter  brought  to  your  attention 
already.  If  the  ultimate  career  of  the  bill  is  not  affected  thereby, 
I  do  not  see  that  the  prayers  of  the  San  Francisco  people  are  un- 
reasonable. 

"If  you  have  time  you  will  let  me  know  how  you  regard  this 
question  of  delay  and  oblige." 

That  letter  was  from  the  member's  banker.  The  member's 
answer  was  typical  of  hundreds  of  answers  which  were  sent  to 
such  letters.  It  was: 

"Mr.  ,  Dear  Friend:  Yours  of  yesterday  in  re  anti- 
Japanese  legislation  just  received  and  read.  I  will  say  that  nearly 
all  of  my  time  for  the  past  twenty-four  hours  has  been  taken  up 
listening  to  the  arguments,  prayers,  smothered  curses,  and  other 
incidents  of  emotion  on  the  part  of  the  P.  P.  Exposition  Commis- 
sion. They  haled  me  before  the  Governor  and  in  that  august 
presence  asked  that  I  stay  my  destroying  hand.  Last  night  again 
at  the  Land  Hotel  they  had  the  entire  Democratic  contingent  be- 
fore them  for  two  hours  or  more. 

"I  will  say  to  you  what  I  said  to  them,  that  I  am  not  inclined 
to  introduce  any  bills  maliciously  nor  with  the  sole  idea  of  creat- 
ing trouble,  but  that  I  am  bound  as  a  legislator  and  Democrat  to 
see  that  there  is  effective  anti-Japanese  legislation  introduced  dur- 
ing th«  session,  and  that  unless  some  one  or  more  of  the  twelve 
or  fifteen  bills  I  have  heard  of  comes  to  the  front  I  shall  present 
one  myself. 

"This  in  a  way  answers  your  question  about  the  delay.  I  can- 
not think  it  will  make  any  difference  to  the  measure  if  it  is  al- 
lowed to  lie  in  wait  for  the  greater  part  of  the  first  thirty  days." 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  221 

The  meeting  came  to  no  decision.  Moore  agreed 
that  San  Francisco  labor  leaders  would  go  on  record  as 
favoring  delay  in  anti-Asiatic  legislation.  The  Demo- 
crats decided  to  await  developments. 

But  the  labor  leaders  did  not  go  on  record,  although 
had  that  group  of  "labor  leaders"  controlling  the  des- 
tinies of  the  Asiatic  Exclusion  League  done  so,  no  sur- 
prise would  have  been  caused.  They  had  taken  such 
action  two  years  before.  But  labor  representatives  of 
the  type  of  Paul  Scharrenberg,  editor  of  the  Coast  Sea- 
men's Journal,  took  definite  stand  that  President  Moore's 
request  should  not  be  granted.  The  representatives  of 
the  Exposition  at  Sacramento  lost  ground  every  hour. 
It  soon  became  evident  their  wishes  would  not  be  com- 
plied with.  When  the  hour  for  the  introduction  of  bills 
arrived,  among  the  first  presented  were  bills  to  bar 
aliens  from  ownership  of  the  soil.198 

These  measures  were  readily  divided  into  two 
classes : 

(1)  Those    which    were    aimed    at    Asiatic    aliens 
alone. 

(2)  Those  which  were  aimed  at  all  aliens,  Euro- 
pean as  well  as  Asiatic. 

Of  the   first   class,   the    Birdsall-Finnegan    bill    was 


198  "In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  President  Moore  and  a  committee 
of  Exposition  authorities,"  said  The  Fresno  Republican  in  com- 
menting upon  these  measures,  "three  alien  land  bills  were  intro- 
duced in  Sacramento  yesterday.  If  any  were  to  be  introduced, 
three  or  a  dozen  might  as  well  be,  so  the  question  of  Individual 
introducers  does  not  become  important.  From  their  own  stand- 
point, the  Exposition  committee  made  the  mistake  of  going  gun- 
ning for  legislators  with  a  brass  band,  and  of  seeking  too  strenu- 
ously to  prevent  even  the  introduction  and  agitation  of  bills.  As 
we  remarked  at  the  time,  agitation  is  the  one  unsuppressable  thing 
in  our  system  of  'government  of  discussion."  And  the  experience 
of  all  lobbyists  is  that  if  you  want  a  legislator  to  'lay  low,'  you 
must  pursue  like  tactics  yourself." 


222  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

fairly  typical.  This  measure  was  destined  to  be  the 
center  of  a  long  and  bitter  controversy,  and  finally  to  be 
enacted,  but  not  until  it  had  been  amended  and  again 
amended  until  it  bore  little  resemblance  to  the  original 
measure.  Birdsall  introduced  it  in  the  Senate ;  Finne- 
gan  in  the  Assembly. 

As  originally  introduced,  the  measure  provided  that 
no  alien,  whether  resident  or  non-resident  of  the  State, 
who  had  not  declared  his  intention  under  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws  of  the  United  States  of  becoming  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  obtaining  his  first  papers,  should 
hold  real  property. 

The    Larkins    Bill199    (Senate    Bill    416),    although 


199  This  bill  by  extraordinary  series  of  errors  came  up  for  pass- 
age Saturday,  April  19,  at  a  time  when  tension  over  the  Alien- 
Land  measures  was  at  its  ugliest.  The  measures  were  all  sup- 
posed at  the  time  to  be  in  the  safe-keeping  of  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee.  But  not  so  the  Larkins  bill. 

About  the  first  of  April,  Assembly  Bill  416,  an  entirely  inno- 
cent and  unimportant  measure,  was  reported  out  of  the  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee.  By  some  error,  instead  of  the  Assembly 
bill  being  sent  to  the  Senate,  the  Senate  bill  of  that  number,  the 
Larkins  bill,  was  reported.  The  Larkins  bill  without  anybody 
noticing  it  in  this  way  went  on  the  Senate  files.  It  passed  second 
reading  without  being  detected,  which  speaks  eloquently  of  the  at- 
tention given  such  formalities,  and  on  April  19  came  up  for  third 
reading  and  passage.  Then  it  was  detected. 

Larkins  calmly  insisted  that  the  records  of  the  session  be  taken 
at  their  face.  The  records  showed  that  his  Alien  Land  bill  was 
up  for  passage.  He  insisted  that  the  vote  be  taken  upon  it. 

In  vain  Larkins'  colleagues  urged  upon  him  that  the  bill  had 
escaped  from  the  Committee  and  was  really,  if  not  technically,  the 
property  of  that  body.  Larkins  would  not  see  it  that  way.  He 
insisted  upon  a  vote. 

His  colleagues  were  in  a  dilemma.  If  they  voted  against  the 
bill,  they  would  be  on  record  as  opposing  an  Alien  Land  bill. 

If  they  voted  for  it,  they  would  interfere  with  the  plans  being 
worked  out  for  anti-alien  legislation  and  call  down  upon  their 
heads  the  wrath  of  what  they  know  not  of. 

Senator  Campbell  finally  moved  that  the  bill  be  sent  back  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee.  Larkins  contested  the  motion,  and  com- 
pelled a  roll-call.  The  motion  prevailed.  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

To  return  Larkins'  bill  to  committee— Anderson,  Avey,  Benson, 
Boynton,  Breed.  Brown.  Butler,  Caminetti.  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogs- 
well, Curtin,  Flint,  Grant,  Jones.  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Mott,  Owens, 
Shanahan,  Thompson,  and  "Wright — 22. 

Against  such  return — Birdsall,   Bryant,   Conn,   and   Larkins — 4. 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  223 

classed  with  the  Birdsall-Finnegan  measure,  was  more 
guarded  in  its  wording.  The  measure  provided  that 
citizens  of  the  United  States  and  those  who  had  de- 
clared their  intention  to  become  such,  could  hold  real 
property  in  this  State.  Aliens  were  prohibited  from 
holding  property  in  fee  simple. 

The  principal  measure  introduced  by  Democrats 
alone  was  the  Sanford-Shearer  bill,  introduced  by  San- 
ford  20°  in  the  Senate  (Senate  Bill  27)  and  by  Shearer 

200  Senator  Sanford  had  for  years  worried  the  Republican  ma- 
jority of  the  State  Senate  with  Anti-Alien  measures.  Sanford  was 
a  candidate  for  re-election  to  the  State  Senate  in  1910.  One  of 
his  campaign  circulars  read  as  follows: 

"During:  the  last  Legislature,  Senator  J.  B.  Sanford  introduced 
in  the  Senate  a  bill  to  prevent  Japanese,  Chinese,  Hindus  and  all 
other  Asiatics  from  owning  or  leasing  land  in  California. 

"This  bill,  with  others,  was  killed  by  the  Tbig  stick.' 

"If  re-elected,  Senator  Sanford  will  again  introduce  this  bill 
and  use  every  legitimate  effort  in  his  power  to  secure  the  passage 
of  the  same. 

"An  American  cannot  own  land  in  Japan.  He  cannot  even 
lease  land  unless  he  marries  a  Jap  woman  and  becomes  a  part  of 
their  civilization.  If  the  Japanese  think  so  much  of  the  future  of 
the  little  Jap  as  to  preserve  their  lands  for  him,  why  should  we 
not  think  enough  of  Young  America  to  preserve  our  lands  for  the 
rising  generation? 

"No  race  of  people  that  cannot  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States  should  be  allowed  to  gain  a  foothold  in  this  country. 

"Several  States  in  the  Union  have  Alien  Land  laws  on  their 
statute  books.  Among  the  first  laws  Oklahoma  placed  upon  her 
statute  books  was  this  famous  law.  Senator  Sanford  sent  to 
Oklahoma  for  a  copy  of  it  and  introduced  it  in  its  original  form, 
as  it  had  been  tested  and  proven  constitutional. 

"Statistics  show  that  the  number  of  Japanese,  Chinese,  Hindus, 
and  Koreans  in  California  exceeds  100,000.  Further  immigration 
should  be  absolutely  prohibited. 

"The  amount  of  land  owned,  leased,  rented,  and  controlled  by 
Asiatics  in  California  is  becoming  alarming  and  amounts  to  over 
200,000  acres  of  our  most  fertile  lands.  The  value  of  the  crop 
products  is  over  100  millions  dollars  annually.  The  gradual  en- 
croachment of  the  'little  brown  men'  is  fast  becoming  a  problem. 
The  sooner  it  is  handled  the  easier  will  it  be. 

"Within  the  past  seven  years  93,000  Japs  have  come  into  this 
country,  50,000  of  whom  have  become  farmers  and  farm  laborers. 

"Ten  years  from  now,  at  the  present  percentage  of  increase,  the 
Japs  will  be  in  absolute  control  of  the  agricultural  resources  of 
California  and  the  white  people  will  all  be  working  for  the  Japs. 
Every  Jap  now  farming  in  California  is  the  representative  of  his 
male  relatives  in  Japan.  George  Shimo,  the  'Potato  King,'  con- 
trols the  potato  crop  of  California  and  is  several  times  a  million- 
aire. There  are  hundreds  of  other  striking  examples. 

"The  Democratic  platform  endorses  the  Sanford  bill,  and  Theo- 


224  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

in  the  Assembly  (Assembly  Bill  113).  The  measure 
frankly  provided  that  "no  alien  who  is  not  eligible  to 
citizenship  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  no  corporation,  a  majority  of  the 
capital  stock  of  which  is  owned  by  such  aliens,  shall 
acquire  title  to  or  own  land  or  real  property  in  the 
State  of  California,"  except  as  hereinafter  provided. 
The  hereinafter  provided,  detailed  the  procedure  under 
which  such  aliens  could  hold  land  which  might  be  in 
their  possession  at  the  time  the  Act  went  into  effect,  and 
of  the  escheating  to  the  State  of  lands  which  ineligible 
aliens  might  acquire  after  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Assembly  Bill  183,  introduced  by  Assemblyman 
Bradford  (Democrat)  quite  as  frankly  as  the  Sanford- 
Shearer  measure  provided  that  "the  ownership  of  land 
by  aliens,  other  than  those  who  are  eligible  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States  under  the  naturalisation 
laws  thereof,  or  by  corporations,  the  majority  of  the 
capital  stock  of  which  is  held  by  such  aliens,  is  pro- 
hibited in  this  State,  except  where  acquired  by  inheri- 
tance, under  mortgage  or  in  good  faith  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  justice  in  the  collection  of  debts." 

In  the  second  class,  applying  to  all  aliens  alike,  was 
Assembly  Bill  No.  10,  introduced  by  Cary  of  Fresno. 
This  measure  made  no  discrimination  between  the  yellow 


dore  A.    Bell   says,    that   if  elected   Governor,    he   will   sign   such   a 
measure  if  it  comes  to  him  for  signature. 

"Let  every  liberty-loving  American  citizen  put  patriotism  and 
love  of  home  above  partisan  politics  and  do  something  for  young 
America,  by  voting  for  J.  B.  Sanford,  Democratic  and  Anti- 
Machine  candidate  for  State  Senator — Fourth  District." 


The  Alien  Land  Bills  225 

alien  from  Eastern  Asia,  and  the  white  or  mixed  alien 
from  Western  Asia  or  Europe.201 

The  anti-alien  measures  were  sent  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  House  of  their  origin,  to  be  held  until 
some  solution  of  the  problem  could  be  worked  out. 

After  the  constitutional  recess  several  committee 
hearings  were  given  them.  At  these  meetings  repre- 
sentatives of  San  Francisco  labor  organizations  were 
heard,  but  while  the  integrity  of  the  individual  labor 
representatives  was  not  questioned,  the  influence  of  labor 
in  anti-alien  legislation  had  clearly  been  weakened  by 
the  action  of  San  Francisco  labor  leaders  two  years  be- 
fore in  requesting  the  defeat  in  the  Assembly  of  the 
anti-Asiatic  land  bill  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate.  The 
effective  support  of  the  policy  of  the  bills  came  from 
the  farming  districts  where  Asiatics  had  gained  a  foot- 
hold. 

Men  stood  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee, 
and  with  tears  streaming  down  their  faces,  told  of  the 
occupation  of  the  soil  by  Japanese,  and  of  the  retreat  of 
the  white  farmers  before  them.  There  were,  too,  ugly 
suggestions  of  "dead-lines,"  beyond  which  Japanese 
would  not  be  permitted  to  go,202  and  of  checking  of 
hot-headed  youths  who  threatened  violence. 


201  In  addition  to  Alien  Land  bills,   the  six -years  before  agita- 
tion to  exclude  Japanese  from  the  public  schools,  found  faint  echo 
in  the  introduction  of  Senate  Bill  1285   (Benson)    to  add  Japanese 
definitely  to  the  list  of  children   for  whom   separate   schools  may 
be  established.     But  the  measure  received  little  attention,   created 
no  excitement,  and  did  not  get  out  of  the  committee  to  which  it 
was  referred. 

202  "We  have,"   said  M.  A.   Mitchell,   an   Elk  Grove  farmer  be- 
fore the    Senate   Judiciary  Committee   on   the   night  of  March   19, 
"a   dead   line   at    Elk   Grove   now,    beyond   which    the  brown   man 
cannot  pass.     If  we  are  denied  relief  from  the  situation  that  con- 
fronts us  I  will  not  be  responsible  for  what  will  surely  happen." 


226  The  Alien  Land  Bills 

These  hearings  came  to  a  sudden  ending  on  the 
night  of  April  2.  A  joint  meeting  of  Senate  and  As- 
sembly Judiciary  Committees  had  been  arranged  for 
that  evening. 

Officials  and  high-salaried  employees  of  the  Panama- 
Pacific  Company  for  the  last  time  presented  their  case. 
They  were  answered  by  the  plain-speaking  farmers  of 
the  Sacramento  valley. 

And  the  burden  of  the  farmers'  argument,  con- 
vincingly presented,  was,  that  if  one  must  be  sacrificed, 
legislation  to  bar  Asiatics  from  the  land,  or  the  Panama- 
Pacific  Exposition,  it  would  be  better  for  all  concerned 
that  the  Exposition  be  abandoned. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
THE  EXPOSITION'S  LAST  STAND. 

The  last  committee  hearing  on  the  alien  land  bills 
was  held  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  The  room  was  filled. 
The  Directorate  of  the  Exposition  had  made  elaborate 
preparations  to  impress  the  farmers  who  were  to  be 
present,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  committee,  that 
the  Exposition  is  the  most  important  thing  in  California, 
before  which  all  other  considerations  must  give  way. 
In  this  they  not  only  met  with  signal  failure,  but  de- 
monstrated their  inability  to  appreciate  the  attitude  of 
the  farming  districts  on  the  land  question. 

Nor  were  the  farming  communities  alone  repre- 
sented. Labor  had  representatives  there  to  urge  the 
passage  of  the  bills,  and  capital  was  represented  there 
also,  as  insistent  as  farmer  and  laborer  for  the  bills' 
passage. 

The  Exposition  people,  with  unlimited  funds  at  their 
disposal,  had  prepared  generously  for  the  entertainment 
of  opponents  and  committeemen.  A  complete  moving 
picture  outfit  had  been  set  up  in  the  Senate  Chamber. 
Scattered  throughout  the  room  were  well-gowned 
women  and  carefully  groomed  men,  wearing  conspic- 
uously badges — "Do  it  for  San  Francisco;"  that  is  to 
say,  For  San  Francisco,  defeat  these  anti-Asiatic  meas- 
ures. 

The  busy  legislators  had  set  aside  the  evening  for 
the  purpose  of  hearing  arguments  for  and  against  the 


228  The  Exposition's  Last  Stand 

bills.  Instead,  they  were  compelled  to  sit  until  nearly 
ten  o'clock  looking  at  indifferent  moving  pictures,  and 
listening  to  a  purposeless  lecture  of  what  the  Exposi- 
tion was  doing,  and  what  it  was  going  to  do  for  Cali- 
fornia. 

"The  moving  picture  display,"  said  one  opponent, 
an  Elk  Grove  farmer,  in  his  address  to  the  committee, 
"reminds  me  of  the  farmers'  method  of  handling  bees. 
We  puff  a  little  smoke  into  the  hive  to  stupefy  the  bees. 
Then  we  take  the  honey.  The  Panama-Pacific  Exposi- 
tion people  have,  with  their  pictures,  puffed  a  little 
smoke  at  us.  But  it  has  not  put  us  to  sleep." 

The  vaudeville  feature  of  the  proceedings  finally  con- 
cluded, the  officials  and  employees  of  the  Exposition 
presented  their  arguments  against  the  bills. 

Acting   President   Hale   and    Director-in-Chief   Fred- 
erick J.  V.  Skiff  203  made  the  principal  arguments. 

President  Hale  stated  that  California  owes  it  to  the 
Federal  Government,  which  has  invited  the  world  to  San 
Francisco  in  1915,  to  make  the  Exposition  a  success. 
The  State  is  under  further  obligation  to  the  participating 
Nations  of  the  world  to  make  it  a  success.  The  direc- 
tors of  the  Exposition  are  serving  without  compensa- 
tion. Their  work  is  bringing  results.  "All  contracts  for 
Exposition  buildings  would,"  he  said,  "be  let  by  July, 
1913 ;  the  buildings  will  be  completed  by  July,  1914. 
But  if  the  Exposition  is  to  be  the  success  The  People 
expect  it  to  be,  it  must  be  universal,  world-wide. 


203  Frederick  J.  V.  Skiff  is  employed  by  the  Exposition  Com- 
pany as  an  expert  on  expositions.  He  devotes  half  his  time  to 
the  Exposition,  for  which  he  receives  $15,000  a  year.  This  is  at 
the  rate  of  $30,000  a  year,  three  times  the  amount  paid  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State. 


The  Exposition's  Last  Stand  229 

"To  insure  this  success,"  said  Mr.  Hale,  "we  must 
have  the  cooperation  of  every  man,  woman  and  child  in 
California.  When  you  consider  alien  land  legislation  at 
this  time  you  are  treading  on  very  dangerous  ground. 
Everything  connected  with  the  Exposition  is  upward 
now.  If  any  Nation  hesitate,  then  the  course  down- 
ward begins,  and  none  can  say  where  the  stop  will  be. 
It  is  for  the  legislators  to  determine  whether  they  want 
to  make  the  Exposition  one  thing  or  the  other." 

Director-in-Chief  Skiff  also  dwelt  upon  the  necessity 
of  making  the  Exposition  universal.  Up  to  a  few 
months  before  he  had  held,  to  use  his  own  words,  that 
"this  exposition  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  a  care- 
ful, a  complete  and  a  systematic  demonstration  of  the 
status  of  the  world  and  the  intellectual  condition  of  its 
people."  But  Mr.  Skiff's  views  had  changed.  The 
pending  anti-Japanese  legislation  had  filled  him  with 
doubt.  He  stated  that  he  would  be  lacking  in  his  duty, 
as  would  the  Exposition  directorate,  if  he  failed  to  make 
these  doubts  clear  to  the  legislators. 

Matt  I.  Sullivan,  President  of  the  State  Exposition 
Commission,  stated  that  failure  to  have  the  Japanese 
participate  in  the  Exposition  would  result  in  the  Exposi- 
tion failing  to  be  universal.  From  a  universal  Exposi- 
tion it  would  dwindle  down  to  a  mere  State  Exposition. 
He  stated,  however,  that  he  would  rather  not  have  an 
Exposition  at  all,  then  to  have  the  Japanese  gain  a  foot- 
hold in  California  as  they  have  in  Hawaii.  He  did  not 
think,  however,  that  the  State  would  suffer  greatly  if  the 
Legislature  at  this  time  failed  to  pass  anti-alien  land 
laws.  By  passing  such  laws  Europe  will  be  affected  as 


230  The  Exposition's  Last  Stand 

well  as  Asia.  Hundreds  of  thousands  who  would  other- 
wise visit  the  Exposition  would,  he  said,  not  come. 

The  proponents  of  the  anti-alien  measures  had 
neither  moving  picture  show  nor  dazzling  Exposition 
possibilities  with  which  to  entertain  or  tempt.  But  they 
had  facts.  And  they  presented  those  facts  with  smash- 
ing conviction. 

When  they  had  done,  the  issue — Shall  California  be 
white  or  yellow? — loomed  larger  than,  Shall  the  Exposi- 
tion be  universal  or  merely  local? 

Ralph  Newman,  a  Sacramento  Valley  farmer,  was 
typical  of  the  farmers  who  appeared  to  urge  the  passage 
of  the  bill.  He  was  not  eloquent;  he  gave  no  evidence 
of  being  a  $30,000-a-year  man.  But  his  words  did 
carry  conviction. 

"The  argument  of  the  Exposition  Directors,"  said 
Newman,  "amounts  to  this:  If  we  pass  an  alien  land 
law  now,  Japan  will  bite  off  her  nose  to  spite  her  face, 
and  the  blood  may  muss  things  up.  Therefore,  let  us 
wait  two  years,  and  then  we'll  soak  her.  But  I  want  to 
tell  you  that  if  the  Japanese  Government  is  as  keen 
as  the  Japanese  who  are  getting  our  land,  those  tactics 
will  not  work. 

"Near  my  home  is  an  eighty-acre  tract  of  as  fine 
land  as  there  is  in  California.  On  that  land  lives  a 
Japanese.  With  that  Japanese  lives  a  white  woman.  In 
that  woman's  arms  is  a  baby. 

"What  is  that  baby?  It  isn't  a  Japanese.  It  isn't 
white.  I'll  tell  you  what  that  baby  is.  It  is  a  germ  of 
the  mightiest  problem  that  ever  faced  this  State;  a  prob- 
lem that  will  make  the  black  problem  of  the  South  look 
white. 


The  Exposition's  Last  Stand  231 

"All  about  us  the  Asiatics  are  gaining  a  foothold. 
They  are  setting  up  Asiatic  standards.  From  whole 
communities  the  whites  are  moving  out.  Already  the 
blood  is  intermingling.  At  present  the  problem  is  com- 
paratively easy  and  can  be  snuffed  out.  But  let  it  go 
even  a  little  longer  and  it  cannot  be  snuffed  out. 

"We  farmers  are  interested  in  the  Exposition.  We 
will  do  all  that  we  can  for  it.  But  there  is  one  thing 
that  we  can  not  and  will  not  do  for  it.  We  will  not 
jeopardize  our  race. 

"In  dealing  with  the  men  who  demand  this  anti- 
Asiatic  legislation  you  are  dealing  with  men  who  do  not 
put  the  dollar  above  all  else.  Our  Governor  has  shown 
us  what  the  initiative  is.  The  fanners  of  California  will 
show  you  how  to  use  it." 

The  side  of  Labor  was  presented  by  Paul  Scharren- 
berg,  legislative  representative  of  the  State  Federated 
Trades  Council,  and  R.  C.  Hearst.  Both  these  men 
stood  well  with  the  Legislature.  They  are  held  in  high 
esteem  by  all  who  know  them.  But  the  action  of  San 
Francisco  labor  leaders  in  1911  in  advising  against  the 
passage  of  the  anti-alien  land  bill  of  that  year,  was  un- 
questionably a  handicap  upon  them.  There  was  a  feel- 
ing at  Sacramento  that  the  unreliable  element  of  or- 
ganized labor  at  San  Francisco,  which  through  the 
Asiatic  Exclusion  League,  had,  in  1911,  repudiated  anti- 
alien  legislation,  might  later  in  the  1913  session  take 
similar  stand. 

None  doubted  Mr.  Scharrenberg's  statement,  for  ex- 
ample, that  Labor  favors  the  passage  of  anti-alien  land 
laws ;  nor  did  anyone  who  knows  him  doubt  Mr. 
Scharrenberg's  integrity  and  steadfastness  of  purpose. 


232  The  Exposition's  Last  Stand 

At  the  same  time,  none  could  say  but  that  Labor, 
through  those  at  San  Francisco  who  assume  to  speak 
for  Labor,  would  cast  its  influence  against  the  passage 
of  the  bills.204 

James  D.  Phelan,205  former  Mayor  of  San  Francisco, 
capitalist,  Californian,  joined  with  representatives  of 
farm  and  factory  in  demanding  that  the  consideration 
of  the  Legislature  should  be  first  for  the  State.  But 
Phelan  pointed  out  tersely,  in  guarding  the  interests  of 
the  State,  the  Legislature  will  not  be  injuring  the  Ex- 
position. 

"I  know  what  is  going  on  in  this  Legislature  regard- 
ing this  legislation,"  said  Phelan,  "because  through  a 


204  The  following  letter  from  the  officers  of  the  Asiatic  Ex- 
clusion League  will  be  found  on  page  700  of  the  Assembly  Journal 
for  the  session  of  1911: 

"Hon.  Mr.  Hewitt,  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  State  Capitol,  Sac- 
ramento,  Cal. — The  following  is  a  copy  of  lettergram   sent  under 
current  date: 
"'Senator  Thos.  Finn,   Sacramento,   Cal.: 

"  'The  Executive  Board  of  the  Asiatic  Exclusion  League  regrets 
that  regardless  of  previous  communication  on  the  subject  we  have 
not  been  afforded  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  anti-alien  Asiatic 
bills  which  you  introduced  in  the  Senate  Friday.  It  is  the  sense 
of  the  board  that  such  bills  as  these  at  the  present  time  are  not 
conducive  to  the  final  enactment  of  effective  and  permanent  Asi- 
atic exclusion  legislation  and  which  only  can  be  had  through 
Act  of  Congress.  The  school  segregation  question  has  for  some 
years  been  fairly  satisfactorily  settled  and  alien  land  tenure  is 
judicially  and  sanely  dealt  with  by  this  league  and  the  State  labor 
bodies.  We  respectfully  request  that  you  proceed  cautiously  in 
this  matter,  as  pressing  measures  of  this  kind  now  would  mean 
irreparable  injury  to  the  exclusion  cause. 

"  'O.    A.    TVEITMOE,    President. 

"  'A.    E.    YOELL,    Secretary-Treasurer.'  " 

208  An  interesting  story  is  told  of  Phelan's  attitude  on  the  anti- 
Asiatic  measures.  At  the  opening  of  the  session,  representatives 
of  the  Exposition  circulated  stories  to  the  effect  that  Phelan,  then 
on  his  way  to  California  from  the  East,  would,  when  he  reached 
Sacramento,  stop  off  to  use  his  influence  against  the  introduction 
of  such  measures. 

One  man,  at  least,  had  faith  to  believe  that  Phelan  would  do 
no  such  a  thing.  He  secured  a  bet  of  a  five-dollar  hat  on  the 
strength  of  his  conviction.  He  won  the  bet.  Phelan  not  only  did 
not  appear  to  urge  the  suppression  of  such  measures,  but  wrote  a 
strong  letter  urging  that  an  anti-Asiatic  land  law  be  enacted. 


The  Exposition's  Last  Stand  233 

press  clipping  agency  I  am  reading  what  the  interior 
press  says  about  it.  On  this  question  the  metropolitan 
press  is  bottled  up,  just  as  this  Legislature  has  in  the 
past  been  bottled  up." 

Mr.  Phelan  reviewed  the  history  of  the  fight  to  save 
the  State  for  the  white  man  against  the  coming  of 
hordes  of  Chinese.  This  had  been  accomplished.  But 
the  Japanese  present  as  great,  if  not  greater,  problem. 
They  are,  Phelan  argued,  by  destructive  competition 
driving  out  the  whites.  White  men  and  Japanese  can 
not  live  together  unless  the  whites  submit  to  reduced 
wages,  reduced  standards  of  living,  and  sink  to  the  level 
of  the  Japanese.  And  this,  Phelan  insisted,  white  men 
will  not  do.  The  Japanese  in  California  will,  he  said, 
reduce  the  quality  of  our  population;  reduce  the  quality 
of  our  government.  The  State  can  not  contain  a  foreign 
body  and  continue  healthy.  The  result,  if  the  problem 
be  not  met,  will  be  that  the  Japanese  will  eventually 
dominate.  Even  now,  they  are  increasing  because  of 
California-born  children.  Some  of  these  children  are 
Japanese;  others  are  mongrel.  In  Hawaii  native-born 
Japanese  will  be  able  to  outvote  the  whites  and  take 
possession.  California  has  the  same  menace.  Our  su- 
perior conditions  attract  the  Japanese.  They  will  not 
work  as  laborers  when  they  can  compel  a  share  of  the 
crop.  They  will  not  share  the  crop  when  they  can  get 
a  long  lease.  The  evil  of  him  is  that  he  drives  out 
the  white. 

Mr.  Phelan  told  of  his  experience  at  Washington 
when  California  was  considering  anti-Asiatic  legislation 
during  the  last  years  of  Roosevelt's  administration.  He 
had  asked  Roosevelt  if  objection  could  be  made  to  an 


234  The  Exposition's  Last  Stand 

anti-alien  land  law.  Roosevelt  had  submitted  the  matter 
to  Secretary  Root.  Root  had  reported  that  no  objection 
to  such  legislation  would  be  reasonable.  Americans  in 
Japan  are  not  allowed  to  own  land. 

Notwithstanding  this  assurance  from  the  President 
and  the  Secretary  the  California  Legislature  was  in 
such  a  panic  that  year,  that  it  failed  to  enact  even  an 
alien  land  law. 

Mr.  Phelan  warned  the  committee  that  the  Japanese 
are  as  clever  in  diplomacy  as  they  are  able  in  agriculture 
and  manufacturing.  Their  diplomatic  game  is  to  prevent 
such  legislation  as  is  now  pending.  For  eight  years 
they  have,  on  one  pretext  and  another,  succeeded  in 
doing  this.  Now  they  are  frightening  us  with  intima- 
tion that  they  will  not  participate  in  the  Exposition. 

"In  the  language  of  the  street,"  said  Phelan,  "they 
have  us  buffaloed." 

Phelan  insisted  that  independent  action  on  the  part  of 
California  will  not  jeopardize  the  success  of  the  Exposi- 
tion. The  Japanese  are  as  anxious  to  seize  the  oppor- 
tunity which  the  Exposition  offers  them  as  California  is 
to  have  their  co-operation. 

"The  future  of  California,"  said  Mr.  Phelan  in  con- 
clusion, "is  of  far  greater  importance  than  the  success 
of  this  Exposition.  And  in  saying  this  I  do  not  believe 
for  a  moment  that  in  enacting  this  land  legislation  you 
will  jeopardize  the  success  of  the  Exposition." 

Such  was  the  final  committee  hearing  on  the  Alien 
Land  bills.  Even  before  it  had  concluded,  members  of 
the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee  retired  from  the 
chamber,  put  the  final  touches  upon  a  substitute  measure 
for  all  the  Alien  Land  bills  pending  before  it,  and  decided 


The  Exposition's  Last  Stand  235 

to  report  the  substitute  back  to  the  Assembly  with 
the  recommendation  that  the  Assembly  do  enact  it  into 
law. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

PASSAGE    OF   ASSEMBLY    ALIEN    LAND   BILL 

The  Alien  Land  bill  which  the  Assembly  Judiciary 
Committee  sent  to  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  had  been 
drawn  by  a  sub-committee.  To  this  sub-committee  had 
been  referred  all  the  Assembly  measures  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  alien  land  ownership.  The  sub-com- 
mittee's bill  was  in  effect  a  substitute  for  four206  meas- 
ures. It  combined  many  of  the  best  features  of  them 
all.  It  did  not  discriminate  against  the  Japanese  or 
other  Asiatics  except  as  they  were  stockholders  in  cor- 
porations. It  included  all  aliens  within  its  provisions. 
Under  it,  no  alien  could  acquire  land  and  hold  it  for 
a  longer  period  than  one  year.207  The  measure  con- 

206  Assembly  Bill  10    (Gary),   Assembly  Bill   113    (Shearer),   As- 
sembly Bill   183    (Bradford)    and  Assembly  Bill   194    (Finnegan). 

207  The  bill  provided: 

(1)  That  an  alien  could  acquire  real  property  and  hold  it  for 
one  year,  and  not  longer. 

(2)  That  when  property  was  found  to  be  held  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act,  the  District  Attorney  of  the  county  in  which 
such  property  was  located  should  proceed  against  it.     If   it   were 
determined  at  the  trial  that  the  land  was  illegally  held  the  Court 
was  required  to  render  judgment  condemning  it,  and  ordering  it  to 
be   sold  as   in   foreclosure   of  mortgage.     The  proceedings    of   such 
sale  after  deducting  the  costs  of  the   proceeding  were  to  be  paid 
to  the  clerk  of  the  Court  rendering  the  judgment,  where  the  same 
were  to  remain  for  one  year  from  date  of  such  payment,   subject 
to   the   order  of  the   alien  owner  of   such   real  property,    his   heirs 
and  legal  representatives,  and  if  not  claimed  within  the  period  of 
one  year  such  clerk  was  required  to  pay  the  same  into  the  treas- 
ury of  the  State  for  the  benefit  of  the  available  school  funds  of 
the  State. 

(3)  The  act  did  not  apply  to  real  property  owned  at  the  time 
by   aliens,    so   long  as    the   same  were    held   by   the   owners,    their 
wives   and   children. 

(4)  No  lease  of  land  could  be  made  to  an   alien   for  a  longer 
period  than  five  years. 

(5)  Corporations,    the    majority    of    whose    capital    stock    waa 
owned  by  aliens  ineligible  to  become  citizens  were  declared  to  be 
aliens  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  and  ineligible  to  own  land. 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill  237 

tained  a  leasing  clause,  however,  permitting  of  aliens 
holding  real  property  under  lease  for  a  period  not  to 
exceed  five  years. 

The  measure  as  submitted  by  the  sub-committee  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee  contained  no  provision  to  bar 
corporations  the  stock  of  which  was  held  by  aliens  from 
land  ownership.  In  the  committee  a  section  was  added 
to  include  such  corporations.  The  section  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Section  8 — Every  corporation,  the  majority  of 
the  issued  capital  stock  of  which  is  owned  by  aliens 
who  are  ineligible  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States  under  the  naturalisation  laws  thereof,  shall 
be  considered  an  alien  within  the  meaning  of  this 
act!' 

About  this  section,  when  the  measure  came  up  for 
final  action  in  the  Assembly  on  April  15,  the  principal 
opposition  developed. 

Gary  of  Fresno  offered  an  amendment  to  strike  out 
the  entire  section. 

Sutherland  of  Fresno  backed  the  amendment,  but 
Inman,  Stuckenbruck,  Ryan,  Smith,  Johnston,  Blood- 
good,  Wall  and  Murray  spoke  against  the  amendment 
vigorously. 

Inman  insisted  that  to  strike  out  the  section  would 
permit  three  or  more  aliens  to  band  together  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  land.  He  announced  that  the  strik- 
ing of  the  section  from  the  bill  would  be  equivalent  to 
the  defeat  of  the  measure. 

Stuckenbruck  referred  to  the  astonishing  day  four 
years  before  when  Speaker  Phil  Stanton  felt  "the 


238   Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill 

ground  slipping  from  under  his  feet"  and  gave  his  sev- 
enty-nine colleagues  such  a  scare  that  they,  too,  gave 
evidence  of  feeling  themselves  on  uncertain  ground.208 
Stuckenbruck  took  occasion  to  express  his  satisfaction 
that  "California  ground  had  become  firmer;  that  a  Cali- 
fornia Legislature  could  do  what  it  wanted  to  do;  that 
a  President  was  in  the  White  House  who  would  not 
interfere  in  what  is  a  purely  State  matter." 

Brown  of  San  Mateo  gave  expression  to  much  the 
same  sentiment,  congratulating  the  Legislature  that  it 
had  "the  nerve  to  face  the  question,"  and  stating  that 
no  word  had  come  from  Washington  as  at  former  ses- 
sions. Brown  expressed  the  hope  that  the  President 
would  have  the  will  to  let  California  settle  the  question 
in  her  own  way. 

Cary,  in  support  of  his  amendment,  stated  that  dur- 
ing the  four  years  that  have  passed  since  1909,  the  Jap- 
anese have  increased  their  California  land  holdings  by 
only  1,935  acres.  He  held  it  was  folly  to  deny  an  alien 
corporation  the  right  to  hold  land. 

The  proponents  of  the  Cary  amendment  made  little 
headway,  however.  The  amendment  was  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  eight  for  to  sixty-four  against.209 

208  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  page  210. 

209  The  vote  on  the  Cary  amendment  was  as  follows: 

For  the  Cary  amendment — Gary,  Fish,  Gates,  Guiberson,  John- 
stone,  W.  A.;  Kuck,  Schmitt  and  Sutherland — 8. 

Against  the  Cary  amendment — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bagby, 
Beck,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown, 
Bush,  Canepa,  Clark,  "Wm.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Dower, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Ford,  Gabbert,  Gel- 
der.  Green,  Griffin,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  John- 
ston, T.  D. ;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Kingsley,  Libby,  McCarthy, 
McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nelson,  Nol- 
an, Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott, 
Shannon,  Shartel,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck, 
Tulloch,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  White,  and  Young— 64. 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill   239 

Shannon  of  San  Francisco  offered  an  amendment  to 
the  same  section,  but  Bradford  denounced  the  proposed 
amendment  as  useless,  and  the  Assembly  with  a  roar  of 
"noes"  went  on  record  as  regarding  it  useless  also.210 

A  second  attack  upon  the  measure  was  made  by 
Johnstone.  Johnstone  offered  an  amendment  to  the 
first  section  of  the  act  to  make  it  apply  only  to  aliens 
ineligible  to  become  citizens  under  the  naturalization 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

Ellis  of  Riverside  spoke  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
amendment.  He  stated  that  foreign  capital  has  done 
much  to  develop  California.  He  did  not  believe  in  dis- 
couraging it.  Nor  did  he  believe  in  dodging  an  issue. 
He  admitted  that  the  Johnstone  amendment  brought  the 
issue  into  the  open.  But  if  the  Legislature  of  Cali- 
fornia is  determined  to  bring  up  the  Japanese-Chinese 
issue,  he  held  that  it  should  be  met  on  its  merits. 

Nelson  of  Humboldt  backed  the  amendment,  as  did 
Bowman  of  Santa  Cruz  and  Canepa  of  San  Francisco. 

But  Assembly  leaders   contended   hotly   against  it. 

"When  a  foreigner  comes  to  the  United  States," 
thundered  Inman,  "pledged  to  remain  subject  to  his 
king,  he  cannot  become  a  good  American  citizen.  He 
should  not  be  permitted  to  own  American  soil."  211 

210  Shannon's    amendment    was    not    clearly    presented    nor    its 
purpose  made  plain.     His  amendment  would  have   made   the  sec- 
tion  read:    "Every  corporation   the   majority  of   the   issued  capital 
stock  of  which  is  owned   by   [or  the  majority  of  the   members  of 
which    are]    aliens   who    are    ineligible    to   become    citizens    of    the 
United  States  under  the  naturalization  laws  thereof,  shall  be  con- 
sidered  an    alien    within    the    meaning    of    this    act." 

The  words   in  black  face   type,    inclosed  in  brackets,   are   those 
offered  in  the  Shannon  amendment. 

211  The  growing  sentiment  that  the  exploiting  of  California  by 
foreign  capital   is   not  advantageous   but  positively  detrimental    to 
the   State,    is  expressed   by  J.    O.   Davis,   Chairman   of   the  Demo- 
cratic State  Central  Committee  as  follows: 

"The   alien   ownership  of   land   question   in   California   could   be 


240  Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill 

"This,"  said  Chandler  of  Fresno,  "is  a  question  of 
race.  It  is  a  question  of  whether  you  are  to  permit 
the  cheap  labor  of  Southern  Europe  to  take  possession 
of  our  soil  and  drive  out  the  American  people." 

The  Johnstone  amendment  received  a  larger  affirma- 
tive vote  than  did  Gary's,  but  it,  too,  was  overwhelm- 
ingly defeated,  fifty-six  votes  being  cast  against  it  and 
only  twenty  for  it.212 

settled  permanently  and  satisfactorily  by  the  enactment  of  legis- 
lation prohibiting:  the  ownership  of  land  by  all  aliens  of  whatever 
race  or  nationality. 

"The  enactment  of  legislation  prohibiting  the  ownership  of 
land  by  the  citizens  of  any  particular  country  means  inevitable 
conflict  between  the  State  and  the  treaty-making  power  of  our 
Government.  The  safe  and  sound  course  would  be  to  avoid  the 
possibility  of  any  such  conflict  by  enacting  legislation  that  puts  all 
aliens  on  an  exact  equality. 

"During  the  recent  agitation  of  the  alien  ownership  of  land 
question,  legislation  directed  against  all  aliens  without  distinction 
was  opposed  on  the  ground  that  our  State  needs  foreign  capital  for 
its  development.  This  objection,  however,  will  not  bear  investiga- 
tion, as  foreign  capital  exploits  rather  than  develops.  All  the  prof- 
it of  such  development  is  taken  out  of  the  country  and  does  our 
own  people  and  our  own  State  no  good  whatever. 

"The  only  possible  advantage  coming  to  us  from  the  develop- 
ment of  natural  resources  by  a  foreign  corporation  is  giving  us 
the  opportunity  to  sell  to  such  corporation,  labor  and  material. 
Those  of  our  citizens  who  have  advantageous  connections  with 
such  corporations  are  also  profited,  but  we  can  hardly  consider  any 
less  than  the  whole  people  when  considering  legislation. 

"Our  conservation  program  contemplates  the  regulation  of  all 
natural  resources  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people.  We  are  dis- 
regarding this  principle  if  we  permit  our  legislative  conduct  to  be 
influenced  in  the  interest  of  any  less  number  of  citizens  than  all 
our  citizens.  We  cannot,  therefore,  consider  the  relatively  small 
number  of  people  who  are  benefited  by  the  presence  of  foreign 
corporations  engaged  in  developing  our  resources.  Every  citizen 
has  an  interest  in  the  profits  accruing  from  such  development,  and 
if  the  profits  are  being  taken  from  the  country,  our  citizens  are 
being  deprived  of  their  interest  in  resources  that  belong  to  all  our 
people. 

"The  highest  privilege  that  can  be  conferred  on  a  citizen  by 
the  Government  is  the  right  to  hold  title  to  a  part  of  his  country, 
and  that  man  who  is  not  sufficiently  interested  in  our  country  and 
our  institutions  to  declare  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  is 
not  entitled  to  have  conferred  upon  him  the  right  and  the  honor 
to  own  American  soil." 

212  The  vote  on  the  Johnstone  amendment  was: 
For    the    Johnstone    amendment — Bagby,     Benedict,     Bowman, 
Canepa,   Gary,   Clarke,  Geo.  A.;   Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,   Fish,   Gab- 
bert,  Gates,  Guiberson,  Johnstone,  W.   A.;  Kuck,   Nelson,  Roberts, 
Slater,  Strine,  and  Woodley— 20. 

Against  the  Johnstone  amendment — Alexander,   Ambrose,   Beck, 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill   241 

Finnegan  offered  an  amendment,  the  effect  of  the 
adoption  of  which  would  have  been  to  prevent  aliens  se- 
curing land  by  purchase  to  hold  for  a  period  not  to 
exceed  one  year.  The  measure  provided  that  aliens 
could  secure  land  to  hold  for  one  year  or  less  by 
devise,  descent  or  purchase.  Finnegan's  amendment 
eliminated  the  purchase  provision,  leaving  them  only 
the  power  to  secure  land  for  a  one-year  period,  or  less, 
by  devise  and  descent. 

But  Finnegan's  amendment  was  voted  down. 

The  bill  was  then  put  upon  its  passage.  Sixty  voted 
for  the  measure  and  only  fifteen  against  it.213  After 
six  years,  a  House  of  the  California  Legislature  had 
passed  a  measure  to  bar  aliens  from  ownership  of  the 
soil. 

While  the  Assembly  was  passing  its  alien  land  bill, 
a  sub-committee  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee, 
with  Senator  Thompson  at  its  head,  was  at  work  on  a 


Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Chandler,  Clark, 
Win.  C. ;  Collins,  Dower,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Ford, 
Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H.; 
Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Kingsley,  Libby,  Mc- 
Carthy, McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Muway,  No- 
lan, Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott, 
Shannon,  Shartel,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Suther- 
land, Tulloch,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  White  and  Young— 56. 

2is  The  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  Alien  Land  bill  was  passed 
was: 

For  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bagby,  Beck,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Canepa,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm. 
C. ;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Farwell,  Ferugson, 
Finnegan,  Ford,  Gabbert,  Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guill,  Hayes, 
Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Judson,  Killingsworth, 
Kingsley,  Libby,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Moorhouse;  Morgenstern, 
Mouser,  Murray,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Richardson, 
Ryan,  Scott,  Shannon,  Shartel,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  White, 
and  Young — 60. 

Against  the  bill — Benedict,  Bowman,  Gary,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Fish, 
Gates,  Guiberson,  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Kuck,  Nelson,  Roberts, 
Schmitt,  Strine,  and  Woodley— 15. 


242   Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill 

similar  measure.  The  measure  which  this  Senate  sub- 
committee worked  out  was  more  complete  in  detail  than 
the  Assembly  bill.  It  fixed  the  maximum  leasing  period 
at  three  instead  of  five  years  as  the  Assembly  bill  pro- 
vided. But  the  most  important  difference  was  regarding 
the  rights  of  alien-controlled  corporations  to  hold  land  in 
this  State.  The  Assembly  bill  barred  from  land-owner- 
ship corporations  "the  majority  of  the  issued  capital 
stock  of  which  is  owned  by  aliens  who  are  ineligible  to 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States  under  the  natural- 
ization laws  thereof." 

Thus,  so  far  as  the  corporations  were  concerned,  the 
Assembly  measure  applied  to  Asiatics  only. 

The  Senate  substitute  bill,  however,  applied  to  all 
corporations  of  which  aliens  owned  the  major  portion  of 
the  issued  capital  stock.214 

Thus  the  Senate  Bill  applied  to  all  aliens  alike,  indi- 
viduals as  well  as  corporations  controlled  by  aliens, 
Europeans  as  well  as  Asiatics. 

Of  the  two  measures  the  Senate  Bill  was  given  pref- 
erence by  the  Washington  authorities. 

Secretary  Bryan  under  date  of  April  18,  telegraphed 

214  The  section  in  the  substitute  Senate  bill  governing  cor- 
porations read: 

"Sec.  3.  Any  corporation,  whether  formed  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  laws  of  this  State  or  of  any  other  State  or  country, 
a  majority  of  the  issued  and  outstanding  capital  stock  of  which 
shall  be  owned  or  held  by  any  alien  or  aliens,  may  hereafter  ac- 
quire by  purchase  or  devise,  any  right,  title  or  interest  in  or  to 
any  real  property  situated  in  this  State,  and  may  hold  the  same 
for  the  period  of  one  year  after  the  date  of  so  acquiring  such 
right,  title  or  interest,  but  no  longer;  provided,  however,  that  If 
such  right,  title  or  interest  be  acquired  by  such  corporation  by 
devise,  the  same  may  be  held  for  the  period  of  one  year  after 
the  date  of  final  distribution  thereof  to  such  corporation.  At  the 
expiration  of  said  period  of  one  year  in  any  of  the  cases  above 
stated,  all  real  property  so  held  by  such  corporation,  and  all  right, 
title  or  interest  therein  so  held  by  such  corporation  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  escheat  to  the  State  of  California,  and  proceedings  for  such 
purpose  shall  be  taken  as  hereinafter  provided." 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill   243 

Governor  Johnson  that  the  Senate  Bill  was  greatly  to 
be  preferred.  Secretary  Bryan  also  advised  against  the 
use  of  the  words  "ineligible  to  citizenship."  215 

But  no  sooner  had  the  provisions  of  the  Senate  Bill 
become  known,  than  a  powerful  lobby  appeared  at  Sac- 
ramento to  protest  against  the  passage  of  any  such  meas- 
ure. This  lobby  did  not  go  to  Sacramento  at  the  behest 
of  Asiatics,  however.  It  was  there  to  represent  corpo- 
rations and  syndicates  that  have  foreign  capital  invested 
in  California.  Letters  and  telegrams  poured  in  upon  the 
legislators  all  protesting  that  the  passage  of  a  law  to  bar 
alien-controlled  corporations  from  land  ownership  in 
California  would  be  inimical  to  the  present  and  future 
investments  of  European  -banking  syndicates.  Alien 
investors  in  mines  protested;  alien  investors  in  lands 
protested.216 


215  Secretary  Bryan's  telegram  to  Governor  Johnson  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Washington,  D.   C.,  April  18,  1913. 
"Governor  Hiram  Johnson,    Sacramento,    Cal. : 

"The  President  desires  me  to  say  that,  while  he  fully  recog- 
nizes the  right  of  the  people  of  California  to  legislate  according 
to  their  judgment  on  the  subject  of  land  tenure,  he  feels  It  his 
duty  to  urge  a  recognition  of  the  international  character  of  such 
legislation.  Being  anxious  to  preserve  and  strengthen  the  long 
standing  friendly  relations  existing  between  this  country  and  the 
nations  of  the  Orient,  he  very  respectfully,  but  most  earnestly, 
advises  against  the  use  of  the  words  'ineligible  to  citizenship.'  He 
asks  that  you  bring  this  view  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature. 
He  believes  the  Senate  bill  as  telegraphed  to  the  Department  of 
State  is  greatly  to  be  preferred.  That  bill  limited  ownership  to 
citizens  and  (those)  to  be  who  had  declared  their  intention  to 
become  citizens. 

"W.   J.   BRYAN." 

2ie  The  Fresno  Republican  on  April  16,  the  day  after  the  As- 
sembly bill  passed  the  Assembly,  printed  the  following  editorial 
article,  commenting  upon  the  dilemma  presented  by  the  protests 
of  European  aliens: 

"The  Alien  Land  bill  passed  the  Assembly  last  night  in  the 
form  originally  reported  by  the  Assembly  committee,  but  it  is 
extremely  likely  that  the  Senate  bill  will  pass  instead  of  the 
Blrdsall  bill  as  reported  by  the  Senate  committee.  The  two  bills 
will  then  go  to  conference  with  all  the  chances  favorable  to  the 


244   Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill 

The  Senate  Bill,  in  the  face  of  these  protests  was 
again  written  so  as  to  permit  corporations  the  majority 
of  stock  of  which  is  owned  by  aliens  eligible  to  citizen- 
ship to  own  land.  An  entire  section  was  added  to  per- 
mit aliens  eligible  to  citizenship  to  own  mining  and  oil- 
senate  bill,  which  Is  practically  the  Assembly  bill  revised  and 
completed  to  meet  more  carefully  all  the  situations  involved. 

"Since  this  bill  has  already  stirred  up  the  foreign  offices,  not 
merely  of  Japan,  but  of  France  and  England,  it  easily  becomes  the 
most  important  measure  of  the  session.  It  is  the  only  thing  the  Cali- 
fornia Legislature  has  done  or  is  likely  to  do  in  which  the  whole 
world  is  interested.  Some  of  the  comments,  official  and  unofficial, 
however,  are  curiously  inconsistent.  Senator  Curtin,  for  instance, 
pleads  for  a  friend  of  his  who  is  a  British  subject  and  owns  land 
both  in  California  and  in  Canada.  The  poor  man  does  not  dare 
take  out  his  first  papers  as  an  American  citizen  because  he 
would  then  forfeit  his  holdings  in  Canada.  Because  Canada  will 
not  permit  a  foreigner  to  hold  land,  therefore  California  must  do 
so.  This  is  Senator  Curtin's  logic. 

"The  Japanese  Ambassador  in  his  interview  with  President 
Wilson,  is  equally  brilliant  in  his  consistency.  He  has  carefully 
gone  over  the  Senate  bill  and  insists  that  it  is  still  unsatisfactory 
because  it  contains  a  provision  identical  with  the  law  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  of  the  territories,  of  the  public  lands,  and  of 
the  six  States  of  the  Union.  He  does  not  protest  against  these 
various  laws  but  insists  that  if  California  passes  the  same  law  it 
is  intolerable  discrimination  against  Japan.  The  Japanese  Ambas- 
sador is  perhaps  excusable.  He  is  under  instructions  and  must 
do  his  best  with  a  bad  case.  Senator  Curtin  is  also  excusable. 
He  is  not  trying  to  be  logical,  and  he  does  not  desire  the  bill 
passed  which  he  pretends  to  advocate.  He  is  simply  blustering 
for  the  support  of  constituents  to  whom  he  does  not  attribute 
sufficient  intelligence  to  see  through  his  illogic.  If  there  are  voters 
with  that  sort  of  brain  this  is  as  good  a  way  to  appeal  to  what 
passes  for  their  intelligence  as  any. 

"The  present  situation  is  that  if  the  bill  is  passed  in  a  man- 
ner that  is  discriminatory  against  Japan,  it  will  make  trouble 
which  the  Legislature  does  not  care  to  face  and  if  it  is  passed  in 
a  non-discriminatory  form  it  will  make  trouble  with  various  Brit- 
ish corporations  whose  representatives  are  influential  constituents 
of  some  of  the  legislators.  This  dilemma  has  for  six  years  pre- 
vented the  passage  of  either  sort  of  bill.  What  its  effect  this  time 
will  be  may  depend  somewhat  upon  the  nature  of  the  confidential 
representation  which  President  Wilson  confidentially  informs  the 
newspaper  readers  of  the  world  that  he  has  confidentially  trans- 
mitted to  his  confidential  friends  in  California. 

"The  difficulties  raised  by  the  various  British  companies  could 
be  met  in  several  ways.  One  is  Assemblyman  Sutherland's  pro- 
posal to  omit  the  corporation  provisions  entirely.  These  provisions 
would  scarcely  be  effective  against  European  corporations,  and 
they  are  not  now  needed  against  Japanese.  If  Japanese  capital- 
ists were  to  organize  corporations  to  evade  the  intent  of  the  law, 
they  know  that  they  would  thereby  only  provoke  retaliatory 
legislation.  Another  way  is  to  negotiate  treaties  with  all  desir- 
able nations,  extending  the  right  of  ownership.  An  even  simpler 
way,  with  Japanese  precedent  behind  it,  would  be  the  pro  forma 
transfer  of  stocks." 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill   245 

well  properties.217  Another  section  was  added  to  protect 
investments  of  corporations  made  up  of  European 
aliens.218  The  period  which  aliens  could  hold  land  under 
lease,  was  increased  from  three  years,  as  provided  in  the 
first  substitute  bill,  to  four  years. 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  bill  amended  to 
meet  the  views  of  European  investors,  and  their  Cali- 
fornia clerks,  was  accepted  by  the  Senate  on  April  21 
and  sent  to  the  printer.219 

In  it,  as  in  the  Assembly  bill,  the  individual  alien, 
European  as  well  as  Asiatic,  was  denied  the  privilege  of 
land  ownership. 

217  The  section  in  question  read  as  follows: 

"Sec.  13.  The  prohibitions  in  this  act  contained  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  lands,  or  any  interest  therein,  which  are  valuable  chiefly 
for  mines  or  minerals,  or  which  are  being  operated  as  mines,  nor 
to  lands  chiefly  valuable  for  the  production  of  oil,  or  which  are 
being  used  for  the  production  of  oil,  nor  to  timber  lands,  nor  to 
lands  owned  or  used  as  sites  for  warehouses,  wharves,  refineries, 
or  factories  for  the  treatment,  refining,  reduction,  processing, 
manufacturing,  shipping,  storing  or  otherwise  handling  or  dis- 
posing of  any  of  the  products  of  such  lands,  nor  to  pipe  lines  for 
the  conveyance  of  oil  or  other  fluid  substances  except  water,  nor 
to  rights  of  way  for  such  pipe  lines,  and  any  alien  or  any  cor- 
poration may  take,  hold  or  dispose  of  any  such  lands,  pipe  lines 
and  rights  of  way,  or  any  interest  therein." 

218  The  section   to   protect  corporation   investors   read: 

"Sec.  14.  This  act  shall  not  apply  to  the  acquisition  by  aliens 
or  corporations  of  lands  or  any  interest  therein,  which  are  now 
subject  to  a  deed  of  trust,  mortgage,  or  other  lien  to  secure  a 
debt  or  other  obligation  to  any  alien  or  corporation,  where  such 
lands  or  interest  therein  are  acquired  at  a  sale  under  such  deed 
of  trust,  mortgage,  or  other  lien,  for  default  of  the  debtor  in  the 
debt  or  obligation  secured  thereby,  or  upon  a  judicial  sale  upon 
the  foreclosure  of  such  deed  of  trust,  mortgage,  or  other  lien; 
provided,  however,  where  such  deed  of  trust,  mortgage  or  other 
lien  attaches  to  said  land  or  interest  therein  after  this  act  takes 
effect,  said  land  or  interest  therein  may  be  held  by  any  alien  or 
corporation  of  the  class  described  in  section  three  hereof  for  four 
years  from  the  date  of  acquisition  and  no  longer,  and  if  not  dis- 
posed of  within  said  four-year  period,  shall  be  subject  to  escheat 
proceedings  pursuant  to  sections  nine,  ten,  eleven  and  twelve  here- 
of." 

2i»  The  first  substitute  bill  adopted  by  the  Senate  and  described 
above,  will  be  found  printed  in  the  Senate  Journal  of  April  12, 
1913.  The  second  substitute,  prepared  after  the  protests  from  in- 
vestors of  European  capital  had  been  heard,  will  be  found  printed 
in  the  Senate  Journal  for  April  21. 


246  Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill 

But  the  alien  as  stockholder  in  a  corporation  was 
not  treated  so  indiscriminately. 

Both  bills  denied  corporations  the  majority  of  whose 
capital  stock  was  owned  by  Asiatic  aliens  land  owning 
privileges.  Both  bills  permitted  corporations  the  ma- 
jority of  whose  capital  stock  was  owned  by  European 
aliens  to  own  land. 

In  this  particular  both  bills  were  clearly  discrimi- 
natory against  the  Asiatics. 

And  on  the  day  after  the  Senate  accepted  this  dis- 
criminatory measure,  and  six  days  after  the  Assembly 
bill  had  been  passed,  a  telegram  was  received  from 
President  Wilson,  both  by  Governor  Johnson  and  by 
the  Legislature,  in  which  the  President  most  earnestly 
and  respectfully  protested  against  such  discrimination.220 


220  President  Wilson's  protest,  dated  April  22,  1913,  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

"I  speak  upon  the  assumption,  which  I  am  sure  is  well  founded, 
that  The  People  of  California  do  not  desire  their  representatives — 
and  that  their  representatives  do  not  wish  or  intend — in  any  cir- 
cumstances to  embarrass  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
Its  dealings  with  a  nation  with  whom  it  has  most  earnestly  and 
cordially  sought  to  maintain  relations  of  genuine  friendship  and 
good  will,  and  that  least  of  all  do  they  desire  to  do  anything  that 
might  impair  treaty  obligations  or  cast  a  doubt  upon  the  honor 
and  good  faith  of  the  nation  and  its  government. 

"I,  therefore,  appeal  with  the  utmost  confidence  to  The  Peo- 
ple, the  Governor,  and  the  Legislature  of  California  to  act  in  the 
matter  now  under  consideration  in  a  manner  that  cannot  from 
any  point  of  view  be  fairly  challenged  or  called  in  question.  If 
they  deem  it  necessary  to  exclude  all  aliens  who  have  not  declared 
their  intention  to  become  citizens  from  the  privileges  of  land 
ownership,  they  can  do  so  along  lines  already  followed  in  the  laws 
of  many  of  the  other  States  and  of  many  foreign  countries,  in- 
cluding Japan  herself.  Invidious  discrimination  will  inevitably 
draw  in  question  the  treaty  obligations  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  I  register  my  very  earnest  and  respectful  protest 
against  discrimination  in  this  case,  not  only  because  I  deem  it  my 
duty  to  do  so  as  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  nation,  but  also,  and 
the  more  readily,  because  I  believe  that  The  People  and  the  legis- 
lative authorities  of  California  will  generously  respond  the  moment 
the  matter  is  frankly  presented  to  them  as  a  question  of  national 
policy  and  of  national  honor.  If  they  have  ignored  this  point  of 


Passage  of  Assembly  Alien  Land  Bill   247 

view,  It  Is,  I  am  sure,  because  they  did  not  realize  what  and  how 
much  was  involved." 

Governor  Johnson's  reply  to  President  Wilson's  communication 
wax: 

"To   the   President,   Washington,    D.    C. 

"Immediately  upon  receipt  of  your  telegram  of  this  date,  it  was 
transmitted  to  both  houses  of  Legislature.  I  think  I  may  assure 
you  that  it  is  the  desire  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  to  do  nothing  in  the  matter  of  alien  land  bills  that 
shall  be  embarrassing  to  our  own  Government  or  offensive  to  any 
other.  It  is  the  design  of  these  legislators  specifically  to  provide 
in  any  act  that  nothing  therein  shall  be  construed  as  affecting  or 
impairing  any  rights  secured  by  treaty,  although  from  the  legal 
standpoint,  this  is  deemed  unnecessary.  If  any  act  be  passed,  it 
will  be  general  in  character,  relating  to  those  who  are  ineligible 
to  citizenship  and  the  language  employed  will  be  that  which  has 
its  precedent  and  sanction  in  statutes  which  now  exist  upon  the 
subject.  I  speak,  I  think,  for  the  majority  of  the  Senate  of  Cali- 
fornia, certainly  I  do  for  the  vetoing  power  of  the  State,  when  I 
convey  to  you  our  purpose  to  co-operate  fully  and  heartily  with 
the  national  Government  and  to  do  only  that  which  is  admittedly 
within  our  province  without  intended  offense  or  invidious  dis- 
crimination. (Signed)  HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE   COMING   OF    BRYAN. 

The  rapidly  increasing  tangle  into  which  conflicting 
interests  of  alien  investors  and  the  State  were  throwing 
the  proposed  anti-alien  land  measure  must  have  proved 
confusing  at  Washington. 

No  sooner  had  the  State  Department  received  a  draft 
of  the  Senate  Substitute  Bill  which  applied  to  all  aliens 
alike,  than  followed  word  that  the  Senate  bill  had  by 
amendment  been  made  even  more  offensive  than  the 
Assembly  measure. 

On  April  23,  President  Wilson  telegraphed  each 
House  of  the  Legislature  and  Governor  Johnson,  very 
frankly  stating  Washington's  inability  to  understand 
fully  the  situation,  and  inquiring  whether  it  would  be 
agreeable  to  the  Legislature  to  have  Secretary  of  State 
Bryan  visit  Sacramento  for  the  purpose  of  counseling 
with  the  members  of  the  Legislature  and  co-operating 
with  them  in  framing  a  law  which  would  meet  the 
views  of  The  People  of  the  State  and  yet  leave  un- 
touched the  international  obligations  of  the  United 
States.221 

221  President  Wilson's  telegrams  were  Identical.  They  were 
addressed  to  the  President  of  the  Senate,  the  Speaker  of  the 
Assembly,  and  Governor  Hiram  Johnson  respectively.  In  full, 
each  was  as  follows: 

"We  find  it  so  difficult  from  this  distance  to  understand  fully 
the  situation  with  regard  to  the  sentiments  aad  circumstances 
lying  back  of  the  pending  proposition  concerning  the  ownership 
of  land  in  the  State,  that  I  venture  to  inquire  whether  it  would 
be  agreeable  to  the  Legislature  to  have  the  Secretary  of  State 
visit  Sacramento  for  the  purpose  of  counseling  with  the  members 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  249 

Here  was  something  entirely  new  to  the  California 
Legislature.  It  is  not  probable  that  four  years  before 
such  a  request  would  have  been  well  received.  At  the 
1909  session  the  slightest  indication  of  Washington  in- 
terference called  forth  vigorous  protest.222  But  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  telegram  met  with  no  expressed  objec- 
tion. There  was,  however,  sharp  division  of  the  word- 
ing of  the  resolution  of  acceptance  of  the  President's 
suggestion. 

The  resolution  introduced  in  each  house  set  forth  that 
while  this  (Senate)  (Assembly)  respectfully  maintains 
the  right  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California 
to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  land  ownership  within  the 
State,  "the  visit  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Sacra- 
mento would  be  entirely  agreeable."223 

When  the  resolution  came  up  for  adoption  in  the 
Senate,  Senator  Wright,  backed  by  six  of  the  ten 
Democratic  Senators,  attempted  to  have  the  words 
"while  this  Senate  respectfully  maintains  the  right  of 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  to  legislate 


of  the  Legislature  and  cooperating  with  them  In  the  framing  of  a 
law  which  would  meet  the  views  of  the  people  of  the  State  and  yet 
leave  untouched  the  international  obligations  of  the  United  States. 

"WOODROW  WILSON." 

222  See   "Story  of  the   California  Legislature  of  1909,"   Chapter 
XX.;   footnote   90,   page  206;   footnote  92,   page   209. 

223  The    resolution    recited    the    receipt    of    President    Wilson's 
enquiry,   and  continued: 

"Resolved  by  (the  Senate)  (the  Assembly)  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, That  while  this  (Senate)  (Assembly)  respectfully  maintains 
the  right  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  to  legis- 
late on  the  subject  of  land  ownership  within  the  State,  it  will  be 
entirely  agreeable  to  this  (Senate)  (Assembly)  to  have  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  the  United  States  visit  Sacramento  for  the  pur- 
poses indicated  in  the  President's  telegram;  and  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  probable  early  adjournment  of 
the  Legislature  the  (Secretary  of  the  Senate)  (Clerk  of  the  As- 
sembly) be,  and  he  is  hereby,  Instructed  to  transmit  forthwith 
these  resolutions  by  telegraph  to  the  President." 


250  The  Coming  of  Bryan 

on  the  subject  of  land  ownership  within  the  State," 
stricken  from  the  resolution. 

Senator  Wright's  motion  to  that  end  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  seven  to  twenty-eight.224 

Campbell  moved  to  amend  by  adding  to  the  pro- 
vision that  the  Senate  maintained  the  right  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  land  ownership 
within  the  State,  the  words  "under  the  constitutional 
guaranties  and  limitations  respecting  treaty  rights." 

Campbell's  proposed  amendment  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  nine  to  twenty-six,225  eight  Democrats  voting 
with  Senator  Wright  in  the  affirmative,  the  two  remain- 
ing Democrats  in  the  Senate,  Caminetti  and  Cartwright, 
not  being  recorded  as  voting. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Campbell  amendment,  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  thirty-five  for  and  three  against 828 
adopted  the  resolution  inviting  Secretary  Bryan  to  come 
to  California. 


224  The  vote  on  Wright's  proposed  amendment  was  as  follows: 
To    strike    the    words    from    the    resolution — Campbell,    Curtin, 

Juilliard,    Owens,    Sanford,    Shanahan,    and   Wright — 7. 

To  leave  the  words  in  the  resolution — Anderson,  Beban,  Benson, 
Birdsall,  Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Carr, 
Cogswell,  Cohn,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Hans,  Hewitt, 
Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Regan,  Rush,  Strobridge  and  Thomp- 
son—28. 

225  The  vote  by  which  the  Campbell  amendment  was  defeated 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  Campbell  amendment — Campbell,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Grant, 
Juilliard,  Owens,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  and  Wright — 9. 

Against  the  Campbell  amendment — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban, 
Benson,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell, 
Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins, 
Lyon,  Mott,  Regan,  Rush,  Strobridge,  and  Thompson — 26. 

226  The   Senate  vote  on   the  resolution   was: 

For  the  resolution — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Carr,  Cart- 
wright,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant, 
Hans,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  Regan, 
Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 35. 

Against  the  resolution — Campbell,   Owens,   and  Wright — 3. 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  251 

In  the  Assembly,  Dower  (Democrat)  made  the  same 
motion  to  amend  which  Wright  had  made  in  the  Senate, 
that  is  to  say  to  strike  out  the  expression  by  which  the 
Assembly  maintained  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
legislate  on  the  subject  of  land  ownership  within  the 
State. 

But  Dower  had  no  such  effective  backing  as  Wright 
had  had  in  the  Senate.  The  proposed  amendment  was 
rejected  without  a  roll  call.  The  resolution  was  then 
adopted  by  a  vote 227  of  fifty-nine  to  eleven.228 

227  The  Assembly  vote  on  the  resolution  was: 

For  the  resolution — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett, 
Bowman,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ; 
Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Kills,  Emmons,  Ferguson,  Finne- 
gan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Green,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes, 
Hinkle,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Johnstone,  W. 
A.;  Judson,  Kuck,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser, 
Murray,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Ryan, 
Schmitt,  Scott,  Shartel,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck, 
Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Weisel,  White,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young 
—59. 

Against  the  resolution — Bagby,  Beck,  Bradford,  Brown,  Dower, 
Ford,  Griffin,  Killingsworth,  McCarthy,  Simpson,  and  Weldon — 11. 

Assemblyman  Bradford  made  the  following  explanation  of  his 
vote: 

"I  introduced  an  alien  land  bill  (so  called)  at  the  very  early 
part  of  the  session  of  this  Legislature,  because  I  deemed  the  en- 
actment of  such  legislation  very  necessary.  I  believe  now,  as 
well  as  then,  that  California  would  be  within  her  constitutional 
rights  in  enacting  such  a  law.  Under  the  circumstances,  I  thought 
that  the  proposed  visit  of  the  Secretary  of  State  would  not  help 
us;  on  the  other  hand,  I  did  not  wish  to  put  myself  in  the  at- 
titude of  rejecting  advice.  I  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting,  but 
this  courtesy  was  denied  me;  consequently  I  was  forced  to  vote 
'no'  upon  this  resolution." 

228  An    attempt   was    made    to    have    a   conference    of   Western 
governors  at   Sacramento   on   the   occasion   of   Bryan's   visit.     The 
resolution  to  that  end  was  defeated  in  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of 
twelve  to  forty-one.     The  resolution  was  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  Hon- 
orable William  Jennings  Bryan,  has  been  invited  to  visit  the 
California  Legislature  to  take  part  in  a  conference  in  regard  to 
the  enacting  of  a  suitable  anti -alien  land  bill;  and, 

"Whereas,  Said  legislation,  whatever  it  may  be,  will  be  of 
vital  importance  to  all  the  Pacific  Coast  states;  and, 

"Whereas,  It  is  the  desire  of  the  Caifornia  Legislature  to  have 
enacted  the  very  best  possible  legislation  in  referennce  to  said 
alien  ownership  of  land;  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  Honorable  Oswald  West,  the  Governor  of 
Oregon,  Honorable  Ernest  Lister,  the  Governor  of  Washington, 


252  The  Coming  of  Bryan 

Thus,  Secretary  Bryan  was,  by  resolution  adopted 
by  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  invited  to  come 
to  California  for  the  purpose  of  counseling  with  the 
members  of  the  Legislature,  and  co-operating  with  them 
in  framing  a  satisfactory  law.229 

Honorable  Tasker  L.  Oddle,  the  Governor  of  Nevada,  and  Honor- 
able Geo.  W.  P.  Hunt,  the  Governor  of  Arizona,  be  Invited  to 
attend  the  said  conference  to  be  held  with  the  Governor  of 
California.  Honorable  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  the  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States,  Honorable  William  Jennings  Bryan,  and  the 
California  State  Legislature,  in  Sacramento,  that  they  may  be 
able  to  lend  their  assistance  in  preparing  the  proposed  legislation 
in  reference  to  alien  ownership  of  land;  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  the  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Assembly  be  instructed 
to  telegraph  an  Invitation  to  the  above  named  Governors,  inviting 
them  to  be  present  and  participate  in  said  conference." 

The  vote  by  which  the  resolution  was  defeated  was: 

For  the  resolution.  Alexander,  Dower,  Finnegan,  Griffin,  Guill, 
Murray,  Polsley,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  and  Wei- 
don— 12. 

Against  the  resolution — Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Brown, 
Byrnes,  Gary,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Gelder,  Green,  Guiberson, 
Hayes,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.; 
Judson,  McDonald,  Moorehouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  No- 
lan, Palmer,  Peairs,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Schmitt,  Shartel,  Simp- 
son, Smith,  Sutherland,  Welsel,  White,  Woodley  and  Young — 41. 

229  Governor  Johnson  sent  the  following  message  to  President 
Wilson: 

"I  shall  be  pleased  at  all  times  to  consult  with  the  Secretary 
of  State,  and  it  will  be  entirely  agreeable  to  me  to  have  the 
Secretary  visit  Sacramento  as  suggested  in  your  telegram." 

Governor  Johnson  also  wired  Secretary  Bryan  in  behalf  of  Mrs. 
Johnson  and  himself,  inviting  him  to  be  their  guest  during  his 
stay  in  Sacramento. 

"Your  kind  Invitation,"  replied  Secretary  Bryan,  "received  and 
appreciated.  It  will  give  me  pleasure  to  be  your  guest.  Please 
convey  to  the  Legislature  my  thanks  for  the  resolutions  adopted." 

Governor  Johnson  on  April  24,   issued  the  following  statement: 

"The  suggestion  of  the  President  that  the  Secretary  of  State 
visit  California  for  conference  on  the  pending  land  bills  was  at 
once  accepted  by  both  houses  of  the  Legislature  and  by  the 
Governor,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  welcome  Mr.  Bryan. 

"While  the  Legislature  properly  maintained  the  right  of  the 
State  to  legislate  on  a  matter  clearly  within  Its  jurisdiction,  I  am 
sure  there  is  no  disposition  to  encroach  on  the  international  func- 
tions of  the  Federal  Government,  or  justly  to  wound  the  sensi- 
bilities of  any  nation.  My  protest  has  been  against  the  discrim- 
ination to  which  California  has  been  subjected  in  the  assumption 
that  action  which  has  been  accepted  without  demur  when  taken 
by  other  states  and  by  the  nation  is  offensive  if  even  discussed 
by  California. 

"I  am  not  predicting  that  the  California  Legislature  will  take 
any  action  on  this  subject,  nor,  if  It  does,  forecasting  the  terms 
of  any  law  which  may  be  enacted.  I  am  merely  defending  the 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  253 

While  waiting  for  Bryan's  coming,  the  proponents 
of  anti-alien  legislation  continued  their  study  of  the 
complicated  situation. 

The  opponents  of  such  legislation  continued  their 
activity.  The  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Panama- 
right  of  California  to  consider  and,  if  Its  Legislators  deem  ad- 
visable, to  enact  a  law  which  is  clearly  within  both  its  legal 
power  and  its  moral  right. 

"Much  has  been  said  of  the  dignity  of  Japan.  We  would  not 
willingly  affront  the  dignity  of  Japan  nor  offend  its  pride.  But 
what  shall  be  said  of  the  proposition  that  a  great  State,  itself  an 
empire,  of  possibilities  greater  than  those  of  most  nations,  shall 
be  halted  from  the  mere  consideration  of  a  legislative  act,  ad- 
mittedly within  its  jurisdiction,  by  the  protest  of  a  foreign  power 
which  has  itself  enacted  even  more  stringent  regulations  on  the 
same  subject?  What  of  the  dignity  of  California? 

"Admittedly,  California  has  a  right  to  pass  an  alien  land  bill. 
No  one  suggests  that  such  a  bill  should  in  terms  describe  the 
Japanese.  It  has  been  suggested  that  such  a  law  in  California 
shall  follow  the  distinctions  which  are  already  an  unprotested  part 
of  the  law  and  policy  of  the  United  States. 

"The  United  States  has  determined  who  are  eligible  to  citi- 
zenship. The  nation  has  solemnly  decreed  that  certain  races, 
among  whom  are  the  Japanese,  are  not  eligible  to  citizenship. 
The  line  has  been  drawn  not  by  California,  but  by  the  United 
States. 

"Discrimination,  if  it  ever  occurred,  came  and  went  when  the 
nation  declared  who  were  and  who  were  not  eligible  to  citizenship. 
If  California  continues  the  line  marked  out  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, the  United  States  and  not  California  should  be  accused  of 
discrimination. 

"The  Constitution  of  California,  since  1879,  has  said  that  'the 
presence  of  foreigners,  ineligible  to  become  citizens,  is  declared 
to  be  dangerous  to  the  well  being  of  the  State,  and  the  Legisla- 
ture shall  discourage  their  immigration  by  all  means  within  its 
power.' 

"The  Alien  Land  law  of  the  State  of  Washington  provides  that 
'any  alien,  except  such  as  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  are 
incapable  of  becoming  citizens  of  the  United  States,  may  acquire 
and  hold  land,  etc.' 

"The  State  of  Arizona,  in  1912,  enacted  that  'no  person  not  eli- 
gible to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  shall  acquire  title  to 
any  land  or  real  property,  etc.' 

"No  protest  was  made  against  this  policy  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  nor  against  its  adoption  into  the  laws  of  Washing- 
ton and  Arizona. 

"If  the  Legislature  of  California  were  to  determine  on  similar 
action  it  would  be  merely  following  the  declaration  of  our  Con- 
stitution, the  policy  of  the  United  States  Government  and  the 
precedents  of  at  least  two  States. 

"We  protest  while  we  are  merely  debating  similar  laws,  against 
having  trained  upon  us,  not  only  the  verbal  batteries  of  Japan, 
but  those  of  our  own  country. 

"The  position  that  we  occupy  at  this  moment  is  not  pleasant 
to  contemplate.  Calmly  and  dispassionately  we  are  discussing  a 
law  admittedly  within  our  province  to  enact.  Objection  is  made 


254  The  Coming  of  Bryan 

Pacific  Exposition  Company,  for  example,  sent  formal 
protest  to  the  Legislature,  contending  that  the  good 
faith  and  honor  of  California  were  at  stake,  and  that 
no  legislation  offensive  to  any  foreign  people  or  govern- 
ment should  be  enacted.230 

A  day  or  so  before  Bryan  reached  Sacramento,  a  poll 
was  taken  of  the  Senate,  to  ascertain  just  where  the 
several  members  stood.  Then  it  was  that  the  influence 
of  powerful  alien  interests  entrenched  in  California  was 
shown.  If  the  poll  was  to  be  depended  upon,  it  was 
found  that  no  general  measure  applicable  to  all  aliens 
could  pass  the  Senate. 

As  to  a  measure  applying  to  Asiatics  only,  it  was 
admitted  that  the  Reactionary  Republicans  would  not 
support  it  any  more  than  they  would  support  a  general 
alien  law.  Some  of  the  weaker  Progressives  were  re- 
garded as  doubtful.  The  majority  of  the  San  Fran- 
cisco delegation,  intent  upon  protecting  saloon,  prize- 
fight and  other  vice  interests,  was,  of  course,  undepend- 
able.  Several  Los  Angeles  members  were  known  to  be 
opposed  to  all  alien  land  legislation.  If  the  Senate 
Democratic  minority  threw  its  support  to  the  scattered 

by  Japan  and  forthwith  It  is  demanded  that  we  cease  even  dis- 
cussion, and  upon  us,  if  we  do  not  cease  calm  and  dispassionate 
consideration  of  that  which  is  desired  by  a  great  portion  of  our 
people,  and  which  we  have  the  legal  and  moral  right  to  do,  is 
placed  the  odium  of  bringing  possible  financial  disaster  and  even 
worse  upon  our  nation. 

"What  a  situation  for  a  great  State  and  a  great  people! 

"This  question  in  all  its  forms  is  an  old  and  familiar  one.  The 
only  new  thing  about  it  is  the  hysteria  which  it  seems  to  arouse 
when  California  is  the  place  in  which  it  comes  up.  My  protest  has 
been  and  is  against  this  discrimination.  This  State  will  not  will- 
ingly do  anything  to  which  there  could  be  just  objections,  national 
or  international. 

"But  it  does  resist  being  singled  out  on  matters  which  pass 
unprotested  when  they  happen  elsewhere." 

230  The  protest  of  the  Exposition  directorate  will  be  found  in 
the  appendix. 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  255 

opposition,  there  was  grave  question  whether  any  anti- 
alien  measure  at  all  could  pass  the  Upper  House. 

Bryan  reached  Sacramento  on  the  morning  of  April 
28.  He  was  given  quarters  at  the  State  Capitol,  im- 
mediately across  the  corridor  from  the  Senate  chamber. 
There,  for  nearly  a  week,  was  the  extraordinary  spec- 
tacle of  the  California  State  Senate  on  one  side  the 
corridor  dealing  with  the  Asiatic  problem  from  the 
State  standpoint,  while  on  the  other  side  of  the  cor- 
ridor was  a  transplanted  part  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, represented  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  dealing 
with  the  problem  from  the  Federal  standpoint. 

Bryan  went  into  conference  with  the  120  members 
of  the  Legislature  on  the  day  he  arrived  at  Sacramento. 
With  them  met  Governor  Johnson  and  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor  Wallace.  All  others  were  excluded.  But  the 
executive  feature  of  the  meeting  was  farcical.  In  less 
than  two  hours  after  the  conference  adjourned,  the 
Sacramento  Bee,  containing  a  detailed  account  of  all 
that  had  happened  at  the  meeting,  even  to  literal  quota- 
tions from  the  speeches  made,  was  being  sold  in  the 
very  room  in  which  the  conference  had  been  held.231 

Secretary  Bryan  stated  the  President's  preference  to 
be: 

(1)  The  postponement  of  action  for  a  time. 

(2)  If  action  were  deemed  necessary,  that  the  Legis- 
lature take  such  action  as  has  been  followed  by  the  State 

231  The  account  was  written  by  John  L.  Davis  of  The  Bee.  No 
article,  more  accurate  or  more  complete  in  detail  was  printed  in 
any  of  the  morning  papers  of  the  day  following.  Mr.  Davis  had 
to  get  his  data  after  the  meeting  had  adjourned  and  write  his 
article  in  time  for  the  printers  to  set  it  in  type.  All  this  he  did 
in  less  than  one  hour  and  a  half.  It  was  the  most  remarkable 
newspaper  accomplishment  of  the  1913  session,  and  probably  of  any 
session  of  the  California  Legislature. 


256  The  Coming  of  Bryan 

of  Illinois  where  no  distinction  is  made  between  aliens 
and  a  liberal  time  is  allowed  during  which  an  alien  can 
hold  property.232 

(3)  That  if  still  further  restrictions  be  deemed  nec- 
essary that  such  a  law  be  passed  as  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia now  has,  where  the  ownership  of  real  estate  is 
confined   to   citizens   and   to   those  who  have    declared 
their  intention  of  becoming  citizens. 

(4)  Whatever  the  form  of  the  law  that  no  words 
be  used  intended  to  draw  a  distinction  between  those 
eligible  to  citizenship  and  those  ineligible. 

Such  were  the  points  of  Bryan's  message  to  the 
California  State  Legislature.  The  series  of  executive 
conferences  developed  nothing  that  had  not  been  known 
before.  The  feature  of  the  conferences  came  toward 
the  close  of  the  last  of  the  series  of  the  first  day's 
meetings,  when  Governor  Johnson  stated  California's 
position  on  the  question  at  issue. 

Senator  Boynton  had  called  Secretary  Bryan's  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Wash- 
ington provide  that  "an  alien,  except  such  as  by  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  are  incapable  of  becoming 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  may  acquire  and  hold 
land."  Boynton  had  also  shown  that  only  last  year, 
in  1912,  Arizona  had  enacted  a  law  that  "no  person 
not  eligible  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
shall  acquire  title  to  any  land  or  real  property." 

Boynton  had  further  called  the  Secretary's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  these  statements  had  been  contained  in 

232  The  Drew  Alien-Land  bill  of  the  1909  session,  which  at  the 
time  called  forth  such  vigorous  protest  from  Washington  was  based 
on  the  Illinois  law.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909,"  page  203. 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  257 

Governor  Johnson's  announcement  of  California's  posi- 
tion as  telegraphed  East  the  week  before. 

Bryan  had  stated  that  he  remembered  the  statement, 
but  that  the  reference  to  the  Arizona  and  the  Wash- 
ington law  had  escaped  his  memory. 

And  then  Governor  Johnson  made  his  statement. 
Those  who  listened  to  him  recalled  the  ring  and  the 
thrill  of  the  reply  he  had  made  in  his  inaugural  address 
of  two  years  before,  to  the  contention  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  attorneys  that  no  effective  Railroad  Regulation 
Law  could  be  passed  under  the  State  Constitution.233 

"The  point  of  inquiry,  it  seems  to  me,"  said  the 
Governor,  "should  be — and  I  speak  perhaps  academi- 
cally in  this  regard — not:  Is  Japan  offended  to-day? 
but  is  Japan  justly  offended  today".234 

233  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  143. 

234  Governor  Johnson's   statement  was   in  full   as   follows: 
"Mr.   Secretary,  will  you  permit  me  just  one  word:   the  gist  of 

the  statement  was  intended  to  be  that  in  enacting  a  law  of  the 
character  that  was  designated  in  that  statement  the  State  of 
California  would  not  be  guilty  of  any  discrimination  whatsoever, 
and  the  point  of  inquiry,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be — and  I  speak 
perhaps  academically  in  this  regard — not:  Is  Japan  offended 
to-day?  but  is  Japan  justly  offended  today?  Is  there  anything 
that  is  contemplated  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California 
that  should  give  and  would  give  necessarily  to  any  nation,  logi- 
cally looking  at  the  problem,  just  offense?  If  there  be  justly 
offense  given,  none  of  us  desires  that  that  shall  be  so;  but  if  it 
be  a  fact  that  offense  is  taken  where  justly  it  ought  not  to  be 
taken,  then  we  are  justified  in  proceeding  with  our  legislation  in 
the  State  of  California.  And  the  position  that  I  maintain  is,  that 
by  the  use  of  the  words  "ineligible  to  citizenship"  we  give  no 
just  cause  of  offense  to  Japan  or  to  any  other  Nation  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  that  the  United  States  has  heretofore  excluded  from 
citizenship  in  the  United  States.  That,  I  think,  is  after  all,  in  its 
last  analysis,  the  problem  for  you  to  solve,  the  query  being  not 
whether  some  Nation  be  offended,  but  have  you  given  just  cause 
for  that  offense?  and  if  we  have,  of  course,  like  men,  we  should 
recede.  If  we  have  not  and  we  are  within  our  rights,  the  fact 
that  it  may  take  offense  should  not  in  any  respect  influence  us 
In  any  degree  whatsoever.  And  that  we  are  right  in  our  sugges- 
tion that  no  discrimination  is  made  and  no  offense  can  reasonably 
be  taken  is  evidenced,  first,  by  the  naturalization  law  of  the 
United  States  that  declares  Japanese — not  in  set  terms  but  by  in- 
terpretation of  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States — to  be 


258  The  Coming  of  Bryan 

And  the  position  which  he  maintained  was  that  by 
the  use  of  the  words  "ineligible  to  citizenship,"  Cali- 
fornia gives  no  just  cause  of  offense  to  Japan  or  to 
any  other  nation  that  the  United  States  has  heretofore 
excluded  from  citizenship.235 

The  conferences  ended  without  any  plan  of  pro- 
cedure having  been  agreed  upon.  But  before  Bryan  left 
Sacramento  an  open  meeting  was  held  in  the  Assembly 
Chamber  at  which  Bryan  delivered  a  farewell  address, 
in  which  he  recalled  the  President's  preferences. 

"The  responsibility  rests  upon  you,"  said  Bryan, 
"to  do  what  you  deem  necessary,  recognizing,  as  you 
doubtless  do,  that  you  act  not  only  as  the  representa- 
tives of  the  State  dealing  with  lands  lying  within  the 
State,  but  as  the  representatives  of  a  State  occupying 
a  position  among  her  sister  States  and  sharing  with 


ineligible  to  citizenship;  that  is  the  ruling  to-day  of  every  State  in 
the  Union  where  application  has  been  made  for  citizenship  by 
Japanese.  It  is  evidenced  as  well  that  there  can  be  no  discrimi- 
nation, by  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California  adopted  in 
1879,  where  our  organic  law  declared  that  the  presence  of  those 
ineligible  to  citizenship  among  us  is  a  menace  to  our  State.  It 
is  evidenced  again  that  there  is  no  discrimination  to-day  in  the 
use  of  those  terms  by  the  fact  that  in  our  marriage  laws  we  will 
not  permit  Japanese  and  our  people  to  intermarry.  It  is  evidenced 
again  to-day  by  the  enactment  of  Washington  and  the  enactments 
of  the  State  of  Arizona,  and  from  all  of  these  I  insist,  and  I  Insist 
only  as  I  say  by  way  of  argument — or  academically  if  you  choose 
to  put  it  so, — I  insist  that  we  are  within  our  rights  in  enacting  a 
statute  of  the  character  that  is  contemplated;  that  it  is  not  dis- 
criminatory against  Japan  and  that,  in  enacting  that  statute,  there 
can  be  no  just  cause  for  offense  on  the  part  of  Japan  or  any 
other  nation  that  is  excluded  from  citizenship  by  the  laws  of  the 
United  States." 

235  Governor  Johnson  was  supported  throughout  by  the  Pro- 
gressive leaders  of  California.  Congressman  Kent,  for  example, 
under  date  of  April  26,  telegraphed  Governor  Johnson  from  Wash- 
ington his  support  as  follows: 

"Accept  my  thanks  and  congratulations  for  your  brave  stand. 
Opinion  universally  with  you  here.  Any  demand  by  foreign  Nations 
that  we  should  regulate  our  international  affairs  to  suit  them  is 
hostile  Impudence.  Treaty  making  power  not  supreme  in  such 
question  as  ours." 


The  Coming  of  Bryan  259 

them  an  interest  in  and  responsibility  for  international 
relations."  236 

Senator  Lee  C.  Gates  of  Los  Angeles,  on  behalf  of 
the  Legislature,  spoke  in  farewell  of  the  Secretary. 
Gates  expressed  profound  appreciation  and  gratitude 
for  the  interest  the  Federal  Government  had  taken  in 
the  problem,  and  assured  him  and  the  President  "that 
though  we  may  differ  in  the  phraseology  and  terms 
which  we  may  feel  necessary  to  employ  in  legislation 
of  the  kind  which  is  the  subject  of  the  visit  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  that  we  do  it  with  the  profoundest 
respect  for  the  opinions  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
of  the  President  which  has  animated  this  visit,  and  if 
we  feel  impelled  to  depart  in  the  slightest  degree  from 
the  advice  of  the  President  in  this  particular,  we  must 
still  do  it  with  the  highest  respect  for  the  wishes  of 
the  Chief  Executive  of  the  Nation."  237 

And  Bryan  left  Sacramento. 

The  California  Legislature,  even  before  the  Secre- 
tary's departure,  had  proceeded  to  enact  a  measure 
which  affected  Asiatics  alone,  but  with  the  words 
"ineligible  to  citizenship"  ingeniously  avoided. 

23«  Bryan's  farewell  speech  will  be  found  in  full  in  the  appen- 
dix. 

237  Senator    Gates'    reply    to    Bryan's    farewell    speech    will    be 
found  in  the  appendix. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

HENEY-WEBB    BILL    PASSED. 

Even  before  Bryan  had  left  Washington,  consider- 
able progress  had  been  made  in  framing  a  measure 
which  would  bar  Asiatics  from  land  ownership  and  at 
the  same  time  give  the  Japanese  no  just  grounds  for 
complaint.  One  of  the  principal  objections  raised  to 
such  legislation  had  always  been  that  the  treaty  rights 
of  the  peoples  affected  must  be  preserved.  Francis  J. 
Heney  conceived  the  idea  of  a  measure  which  should 
give  to  the  Japanese  all  the  rights  of  land  ownership 
guaranteed  them  by  treaty,  and  no  more.238  This  idea 
was  made  the  basis  of  the  measure  finally  enacted. 

238  The  clause  in  the  treaty  between  Japan  and  this  country 
which  touches  upon  land  ownership  reads: 

"The  citizens  or  subjects  of  each  of  the  High  Contracting  Par- 
ties shall  have  liberty  to  enter,  travel  and  reside  in  the  territories 
of  the  other  to  carry  on  trade,  wholesale  and  retail,  to  own  or 
lease  and  occupy  houses,  manufactories,  warehouses  and  shops,  to 
employ  agents  of  their  choice,  to  lease  land  for  residential  and 
commercial  purposes,  and  generally  to  do  anything  incident  to  or 
necessary  for  trade  upon  the  same  terms  as  native  citizens  or  sub- 
jects, submitting  themselves  to  the  laws  and  regulations  there  es- 
tablished." 

The  treaty  further  provides  that  "the  dwellings,  warehouses, 
manufactories  and  shops  of  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  each  of  the 
High  Contracting  Parties  in  the  territories  of  the  other,  and  all 
premises  appertaining  thereto  used  for  purposes  of  residence  or 
commerce  shall  be  respected." 

Up  to  this  point  in  the  treaty  there  is: 

(1)  Nothing  that  obligates   the  United  States  to  permit  Japa- 
nese in  this  country  to  acquire  and  hold  title  in  land  for  any  pur- 
pose. 

(2)  Nothing    that    obligates    the   United    States    to    permit    the 
Japanese  to  lease  land  for  agricultural  purposes,  although  provision 
is    made    for    permitting    them    to    lease    land    for    residential    and 
commercial   purposes. 

But  the  treaty  further  provides,  that  unless  expressly  set 
forth  to  the  contrary,  concessions  granted  by  the  United  States  to 
citizens  of  other  countries  shall  be  granted  to  citizens  of  Japan. 

Members  of  the  Legislature  differed  in  their  opinion  of  the  ef- 
fect of  this  "most  favored  nation"  clause  upon  the  right  of  the 
State  to  enact  laws  that  would  exclude  Japanese  from  the  soil. 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  261 

Heney  drew  a  rough  draft  of  a  measure  in  which 
the  exact  wording  of  the  Japanese  treaty  was  followed. 
Long  before  Bryan  reached  Sacramento,  this  Heney 
measure  had  been  typed,  and  distributed  among  the 
proponents  of  alien  land  legislation.239 

U.  S.  Webb,  the  State's  Attorney  General,  after 
Heney  had  prepared  the  draft  of  his  bill,  worked  out 
the  measure  which  finally  passed  the  Legislature. 

The  Webb  measure  was  very  simple  and  very  short. 
It  provided  that  all  aliens  who  are  eligible  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States  could  hold  land  the 
same  as  native  born  citizens.  It  then  provided  that 
aliens,  not  included  among  those  eligible  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  could  hold  land  only 
to  the  extent  and  in  the  manner  provided  by  the 
respective  treaties  then  existing  between  the  countries 


238  The  writer  first  saw  the  draft  of  the  Heney  bill  on  Thurs- 
day, April  24.  Bryan  did  not  reach  Sacramento  until  the  follow- 
ing Monday,  April  28.  The  first  four  sections  of  the  Heney  bill 
were: 

"Section  1.  This  Act  shall  be  known  and  may  be  cited  as  the 
'ALIEN  LAND  ACT'  and  shall  apply  to  the  subject  mentioned 
in  its  title. 

Sec.  2.  The  term  "ineligible  alien",  when  used  in  this  Act, 
means  an  alien  who  is  ineligible  under  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  United  States,  to  become  a  citizen 
thereof. 

"Sec.  3.  No  ineligible  alien,  as  herein  defined,  shall  acquire 
title  to  or  hold  real  property  within  this  State,  or  any  interest 
therein,  or  take  or  acquire  or  hold  the  same  by  devise,  descent, 
purchase  or  otherwise,  except  as  in  this  act  provided. 

"Sec.  4.  Title  to  real  property  situated  in  this  State,  or  to  any 
right  or  Interest  therein,  may  be  acquired,  owned  or  held  by  any 
ineligible  alien,  whether  resident  or  non-resident,  only  in  the  man- 
ner herein  provided  and  subject  to  the  restrictions,  terms  and 
conditions  set  forth  and  not  otherwise. 

"(a).  Ineligible  aliens  may  hereafter  acquire,  by  purchase  or 
otherwise  (excepting  by  devise  or  descent  which  are  hereinafter 
provided  for),  and  own  and  lease  and  occupy  houses  or  dwellings, 
manufactories,  warehouses  and  shops,  and  the  premises  apper- 
taining thereto  used  for  purpose  of  residence  or  commerce,  and 
may  also  lease  land  for  residential  and  commercial  purposes." 


262  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

of  their  nativity  and  this  country  and  not  otherwise.240 
The  bill  contained  no  provision  under  which  affected 
aliens  could  lease  land. 

The  Webb  draft  was  made  subject  of  several  con- 
ferences. The  objection  was  brought  to  it  that  it  could 
be  construed  as  a  surrender  or  waiver  on  the  part  of 
the  State  of  California  of  the  State's  right  to  regulate 
for  itself  the  ownership  of  land  within  its  borders, 
when  such  regulation  conflicted  with  existing  treaties. 
A  section  was  accordingly  added  which  provided  specifi- 
cally that  nothing  in  the  bill  should  be  construed  as 
such  surrender  or  waiver.241 

It  will  be  remembered  that  on  April  21,  the  Birdsall 
anti-alien  land  bill  (Senate  Bill  5)  was  for  the  second 
time  amended  by  practically  substituting  a  new  bill 
for  it.  On  April  29,  the  day  after  Bryan's  arrival  at 
Sacramento,  the  measure  was  for  the  third  time 
amended  by  striking  out  all  the  provisions  of  the 
measure  as  amended  on  April  21,  and  substituting  for 
them  the  provisions  of  the  Heney-Webb  bill.  In  this 


240  These  sections  of  the  Webb  draft  were  as  follows: 
"Sec.  1.  All  aliens  eligible  to  citizenship  under  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  may  acquire,  possess,  enjoy,  transmit  and  in- 
herit real  property,  or  any  interest  therein,  in  this  State,  in  the 
same  manner  and  to  the  same  extent  as  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  except  as  otherwise  provided  by  the  laws  of  this  State. 

"Sec.  2.  All  aliens  other  than  those  mentioned  in  section  one 
of  this  act  may  acquire,  possess,  enjoy  and  transfer  real  property, 
or  any  interest  therein,  in  this  State,  in  the  manner  and  to  the 
extent  and  for  the  purposes  prescribed  by  any  treaty  now  existing: 
between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  nation  or 
country  of  which  such  alien  is  a  citizen  or  subject,  and  not 
otherwise." 

2*1  The  Section  was: 

"Sec.  7.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  a  limitation 
upon  the  power  of  the  State  to  enact  laws  with  respect  to  t'  e 
acquisition,  holding  or  disposal  by  aliens  of  real  property  in  this 
State." 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  263 

way  the  Heney-Webb  bill  was  brought  before  the 
Senate. 

By  the  time  the  bill  had  been  printed  to  meet  con- 
stitutional provisions,  Thursday,  May  1,  it  had  become 
evident  that  Secretary  Bryan's  mission  to  California 
had  failed.  Sentiment  was  strong  for  the  passage  of 
the  Heney-Webb  bill.  But  there  was  no  certainty  that 
the  measure  could  be  passed.  With  but  two  or  three 
exceptions  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Senate  were 
counseling  delay  in  accordance  with  Secretary  Bryan's 
wishes.  The  Reactionary  Republicans  opposed  the  bill. 
Several  members  of  the  Los  Angeles  delegation  were 
known  to  be  out  of  sympathy  with  anti-alien  legislation. 
A  majority  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation,  ostensibly 
for  the  bill,  was  admittedly  undependable.  Without  the 
support  of  the  seven  San  Francisco  Senators,  the 
probabilities  were  that  the  measure  could  not  be  passed. 

The  session  was  drawing  to  its  close.  Action  one 
way  or  the  other  was  desirable,  if  not  necessary,  if  the 
bill  was  to  be  passed.  The  measure  would,  in  the  regu- 
lar course  of  legislative  business  come  up  for  final 
action  on  the  forenoon  of  May  1.  Progressive  leaders 
on  the  morning  of  May  1  entered  the  Senate  Chamber 
with  their  minds  made  up  to  settle  the  question  one 
way  or  the  other,  and  let  the  bill  go  to  vote. 

They  encountered  opposition,  led  by  Senator  Cur- 
tin242  of  Tuolumne  and  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  of 
San  Diego. 

242  Senator  Curtin  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Plat- 
form which  at  the  Democratic  State  Convention  held  in  Septem- 
ber, 1912,  formed  the  State  Democratic  platform  which  put  the 
Democratic  party  on  record  for  "the  passage  of  a  bill  that  will 
prevent  any  alien  not  eligible  to  citizenship  from  owning  land  in 
the  State  of  California."  See  footnote  189,  page  213. 


264  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

Senator  Curtin  offered  a  joint  resolution243  which 
set  forth  that  inasmuch  as  the  President  of  the  United 
States  had  advised  that  the  passage  of  any  bill  dis- 
criminating against  any  particular  nation  or  nations 
would  embarrass  the  Federal  Government,  etc.,  that  the 
people  of  the  State  of  California  would  defer  to  the 
President's  wishes  and  "this  Legislature  will  not  at  this 
session  pass  the  bills  advised  against."  2** 

243  Curtin  as  a  matter  of  fact  introduced  two  resolutions,  Sen- 
ate Joint  Resolution  No.  36  and  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  37. 

The  first  was  loosely  drawn,  and  dealt  with  the  issue  with  un- 
diplomatic frankness.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  first  resolu- 
tion set  forth: 

"Whereas,  The  President  of  the  United  States  has  earnestly 
suggested  to  this  Legislature  that  the  passage  of  said  bills  would 
likely  produce  serious  international  complications  and  unfriendly 
relations  between  the  United  States  and  a  certain  foreign  nation 
now  protesting  against  the  passage  of  said  bills  and  which  nation 
deems  the  passage  of  said  bills  as  intended  to  apply  to  subjects  of 
the  particular  nation  referred  to." 

In  the  second  resolution  (No.  37)  this  section  was  changed  to 
read: 

"Whereas,  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  earnestly  ad- 
vised this  Legislature  that  the  passage  of  any  bill  discriminating 
against  any  particular  nation  or  nations  would  embarrass  the 
Federal  Government  and  to  some  degree  disturb  the  friendly  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  United  States  and  the  nation  or  nations 
discriminated  against,"  etc. 

Other  changes  corrected  grammatical  errors  which  appeared  in 
the  first  resolution.  The  language  of  the  resolution  was  also  toned 
down.  In  Resolution  No.  36,  what  had  been  the  "request  of  the 
President"  that  he  be  permitted  to  deal  with  the  problem  through 
diplomacy,  was  made  the  "advice  of  the  President,"  what  had 
been  in  No.  36  the  "demand  of  The  People  of  California,"  for  such 
legislation  was  made  in  No.  37,  the  desire  of  The  People  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

In  the  second  resolution,  (No.  37)  was  a  provision  "that  if  at 
any  time  during  the  pendency  of  diplomatic  effort  the  Governor 
of  California  becomes  convinced  that  the  success  of  such  effort  is 
improbable,  he  is  hereby  requested  to  call  an  extraordinary  session 
of  the  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  enacting  such  a  land  law  as 
the  people  demand." 

This  provision  did  not  appear  in  the  first  resolution.  The  first 
resolution  was  not  reported  out  of  committee. 

244  On  the  day  Senator  Curtin  introduced  this  resolution,   Gov- 
ernor   Johnson    received    the    following    telegram    from    President 
Wilson: 

"I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  Webb  bill 
which  would  involve  an  appeal  to  the  Courts  on  questions  of  treaty 
rights  and  bring  on  what  might  be  long  and  delicate  litigation. 
Woodrow  Wilson." 

The  Governor's  reply  was  as  follows: 

"I  thank  you  very  much  for  your  suggestions.     The  fault  may 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  265 

Immediately  after  Senator  Curtin's  resolution  had 
been  introduced,  and,  in  the  regular  course  of  legislative 
business,  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations, 
the  Heney-Webb  bill  came  up  for  passage.  Senator 
Curtin  moved  that  action  on  the  measure  be  postponed 
until  the  following  day.  The  Progressives  opposed 
such  action.  With  the  San  Francisco  delegation  voting 
for  the  measure  it  could  be  passed  despite  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  Curtin- Wright  group.  At  this  stage  of  the 
bill's  passage  it  must  be  remembered,  there  was  no 
provision  in  the  measure  under  which  Asiatic  aliens 
could  lease  land  in  California.  Had  the  measure  been 
passed  that  day  as  the  Progressives  had  planned,  and 
for  which  they  were  contending,  the  measure  would 
have  been  sent  to  the  Assembly  without  provision  for 
leasing.  It  is  improbable  that  such  a  clause  would  have 
been  added  in  the  Assembly.  The  bill  would  have  gone 
to  the  Governor  without  a  provision  to  permit  leasing 
of  lands  to  Asiatic  aliens. 

In  the  midst  of  the  debate  on  Curtin's  motion  to 
postpone  action,  Senator  Wright  and  Senator  Tom 
Finn  of  San  Francisco  engaged  in  a  moment's  con- 
versation at  Finn's  desk.  The  San  Francisco  Senator 
soon  after  asked  Senator  Birdsall  if  a  time  in  the 
future  could  not  be  fixed  for  consideration  of  the 
bill.  The  leaders  of  the  proponents,  when  Finn  made 
this  inquiry,  gave  evidence  of  confusion  and  uncertainty. 

They   perhaps    remembered   that   when   Alien    Land 


be  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  endeavored  to  presume  affirma- 
tively upon  the  fact  of  our  bill  conforming  to  the  existing  treaty. 
"I  have  referred  the  matter  at  once  to  our  Attorney  General 
and  I  would  be  extremely  grateful  for  any  suggestion  that  would 
avoid  the  objection  you  mention.  Hiram  W.  Johnson." 


266  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

bills  were  pending  before  the  Legislature  two  years 
before,  the  Executive  Board  of  the  Asiatic  Exclusion 
League,  through  O.  A.  Tveitmoe  and  A.  E.  Yoell,  re- 
spectively President  and  Secretary-Treasurer  of  that  or- 
ganization, and  prominent  in  San  Francisco  Union  Labor 
party  politics,  had  sent  a  communication  to  the  Legisla- 
ture praying  that  no  further  action  be  taken  on  Alien 
Land  bills.  At  any  rate,  immediately  after  Finn's  ques- 
tion to  Birdsall,  both  Birdsall  and  Thompson  announced 
their  willingness  to  postpone  action.  Curtin's  motion 
to  let  the  bill  go  over  until  the  next  day  in  this  way 
prevailed. 

The  outcome  was  regarded  as  a  winning  for  the 
Curtin-Wright  group.245  Whether  or  not  the  measure 
could  pass  the  Senate  began  to  be  questioned.  The 
bill's  proponents  had  given  evidence  of  weakness.  Their 
position  was  regarded  as  uncertain  and  insecure.  Large 
land-holding  interests  were  said  to  be  opposed  to  the 
plan  to  stop  land  leasing  to  Asiatics.  In  fact,  the 
measure  was  the  first  of  its  kind  which  failed  to  provide 
by  specific  provision  or  by  implication  for  land  leasing 
to  aliens.  The  Assembly  bill  which  had  passed  the 
Lower  House  permitted  leasing  for  periods  of  five 
years.  It  was  held  that  the  Heney-Webb  bill  could  not 


245  To  meet  possibly  unfavorable  action  In  the  Senate,  Blood- 
good  of  Los  Angeles  Introduced  in  the  Assembly  an  Alien  Land  bill 
(Assembly  Bill  2119).  This  measure,  except  that  it  provided  for 
the  leasing  of  land  by  aliens  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  three  years, 
was  a  reproduction  of  the  Heney-Webb  bill.  The  measure  was 
reported  out  of  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee  the  following 
day,  with  recommendation  that  it  be  enacted.  But  the  passage  of 
the  Heney-Webb  bill  in  the  Senate,  on  the  day  the  Bloodgood  bill 
came  from  committee,  made  further  action  on  the  Bloodgood 
measure  unnecessary. 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  267 

pass  the  Legislature  unless  a  leasing  provision  were 
added.24" 

This  position  was  given  support  the  following  day, 
when  the  bill  came  up  for  final  action.  Boynton  offered 
an  amendment  under  which  Asiatics  were  granted  the 
privilege  of  holding  land  under  lease  for  periods  not  to 
exceed  three  years.  The  amendment  was  finally  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  25  to  13.247  But  before  the  vote  was  taken, 
Caminetti  apparently  objected  to  the  leasing  clause. 
Boynton  turned  to  him  and  announced  that  if  the 
Democrats  objected  to  the  leasing  clause,  the  Progres- 
sive leaders  would  not  press  it.  Boynton  was  insistent 
in  his  demand  of  open  expression  of  opposition  from 
Caminetti.  But  this  expression  he  could  not  get.  Cam- 
inetti was  one  of  those  who  finally  voted  for  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  bill,  reprinted  with  the  leasing  provision  added, 
got  back  from  the  printer  that  afternoon.  When  it 
came  up  for  action,  Senator  Curtin  moved  that  its  con- 


246  The   story   was    circulated    that    "Washington    suggested    the 
leasing  provision.     The  writer  has  it  on  high  authority,   however, 
that  Washington  did  no  such  thing. 

The  amendment  permitting  leasing  was  decided  upon  after  the 
initial  defeat  which  the  proponents  of  the  bill  suffered  on  Thurs- 
day when  they  failed  to  pass  the  measure  without  a  leasing 
clause,  because  they  could  not  count  enough  dependable  votes  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  to  pass  the  bill  unless  the  leasing  clause 
were  inserted. 

Very  frankly,  genuine  proponents  of  the  measure  did  not  like 
the  leasing  clause,  which,  to  secure  any  alien  land  legislation  at 
all,  they  were  compelled  to  accept.  But  they  had  to  deal  with  the 
situation  which  confronted  them. 

247  The   vote  by   which   the  three-years   leasing   provision   was 
put  into  the  bill  was: 

For  the  leasing  provision — Anderson,  Avey,  Boynton,  Breed, 
Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Conn,  Curtin,  Flint, 
Gates,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  Owens, 
Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 25. 

Against  the  leasing  provision — Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Brown, 
Bryant,  Cartwright,  Finn,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Lyon,  Regan,  Sanford, 
and  Shanahan — 13. 


268  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

sideration  be  continued  until  his  joint  resolution,  de- 
claring such  a  measure  should  not  be  passed  at  the 
1913  session,  had  been  disposed  of. 

The  fight  over  Curtin's  motion  occupied  the  Senate 
for  the  balance  of  the  afternoon.  Curtin  was  finally 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  ten  to  twenty-six.248  This  left  the 
way  clear  for  consideration  of  the  amended  Heney- 
Webb  measure. 

Amendments  were  offered  by  Wright,  Sanford, 
Caminetti,  and  Shanahan.249  The  amendments  were 
one  by  one  refused  adoption,  although  they  occasioned 
hours  of  debate. 

The  measure  was  then  put  to  final  vote.  It  was 
passed.  Thirty-five  Senators  voted  for  it.  Two  only — 
Cartwright  and  Wright — voted  against  it.250 

248  The  vote  by  which   Curtin's   motion   to   postpone   considera- 
tion of  the  Heney-Webb  bill  until  the  Curtin  resolution  should  be 
disposed  of,   was  as  follows: 

For  Curtin's  motion  and  postponement — Caminetti,  Campbell, 
Cartwright,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Jones,  Owens,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  and 
Wright— 10. 

Against  Curtin's  motion  and  against  postponement — Anderson, 
Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Breed,  Bryant,  Butler,  Carr, 
Cogswell,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Juilliard, 
Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Regan,  Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
and  Tyrrell — 26. 

249  The  effect  of  the  Shanahan  amendments  was  that  no  lease 
to  Asiatic  aliens  made  under  the  law  should  be  made,  extended  or 
be  in  effect,  after  three  years  from  and  after  taking  effect  of  the 
act.     They  were   defeated   by  a  vote   of   nine   to    twenty-three,    as 
follows: 

For  the  Shanahan  Amendments — Bryant,  Caminetti,  Campbell, 
Cartwright,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Owens,  Sanford,  and  Shanahan — 9. 

Against  the  Shanahan  Amendments — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban, 
Benson,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Flint,  Gates, 
Gerdes,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 23. 

250  The  vote  by  which  the  Heney-Webb  bill  passed  the  Senate 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  Heney-Webb  bill — Anderson,  Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr, 
Cogswell,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Grant,  Hewitt, 
Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkinsl,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens,  Regan,  Rush, 
Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 35. 

Against  the   Heney-Webb   bill— Cartwright  and  Wright— 2. 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  269 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  on  Friday,  May  2.  It 
passed  the  Assembly  the  next  day. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  Bryan 
had  reached  Sacramento  the  previous  Monday,  April  28. 
The  day  following,  the  bill  embodying  Heney's  idea  of 
basing  the  anti-alien  land  law  on  treaty  provisions,  was 
practically  introduced  in  the  Senate,  although  officially 
it  came  as  an  amendment  to  the  Birdsall  bill.  By 
Saturday  night,  it  had  passed  both  Houses  and  had 
been  sent  to  the  Governor  for  his  signature.  All  this 
in  less  than  six  days. 

The  bill  reached  the  Assembly  Saturday  morning. 
The  State  constitution  provides  that  a  bill,  before  it 
may  become  a  law,  must  be  read  on  three  several  days 
in  each  house.  In  cases  of  emergency,  however,  this 
provision,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  in  the  House  where  the 
measure  is  pending,  may  be  dispensed  with.251 

The  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  fifty-seven  to  five,  de- 
clared the  Heney-Webb  bill  to  be  an  emergency  meas- 
ure, suspended  the  Constitution,  read  the  bill  the  three 
times  on  one  day  instead  of  on  three  several  days,  and 
put  it  on  its  final  passage.252 

251  See   Article   IV,    Section   15   of  the   California   State   Consti- 
tution   (1879).      Fifty-four    constitute    a    two-thirds    vote    in    the 
Assembly  and  twenty-seven  in  the  Senate. 

252  The   vote    by   which    the    Constitution    was    suspended,    thus 
making    the    passage    of    the    bill    on    Saturday    possible,    was    as 
follows: 

To  suspend  the  Constitution — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Chandler, 
Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Dower,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Fitzgerald, 
Gabbert,  Gates,  Green,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Kingsley, 
Kuck,  Libby,  McDonald,  Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Palmer, 
Peairs,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater, 
Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel. 
Weldon,  White,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  Young — 57. 

Against  suspending  the  Constitution — Alexander,  Beck,  Bowman, 
Schmltt,  Shannon — 5. 


270  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

But  before  the  bill  could  be  passed,  its  proponents 
had  to  make  the  same  fight  for  it  that  had  been  made 
in  the  Senate. 

Shearer  introduced  the  same  Joint  Resolution  which 
Curtin  had  offered  in  the  Upper  House,  declaring  it 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  Legislature  that  in  deference  to 
the  President's  wishes,  Alien  Land  bills  should  not 
be  enacted  at  the  1913  session.253 

The  debate  on  this  resolution  occupied  the  Assembly 
during  the  entire  afternoon.  It  was  finally  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  twenty-one  to  forty-nine.254  This  left  the 
way  clear  for  consideration  of  the  bill. 

Chandler  of  Fresno  offered  an  amendment  which 
brought  the  Assembly  squarely  to  the  question  whether 
its  support  was  to  be  given  a  bill  applying  to  all  aliens, 
or  applying  to  Asiatics  only. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  on  April  15,  a  fortnight 
before,  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  sixty  to  fifteen,255 
had  passed  an  Alien  Land  bill  applying  to  all  aliens, 
except  in  cases  of  land-holding  corporations,  where  it 
applied  to  those  ineligible  to  citizenship  only.  Chandler 


253  Assembly    Joint    Resolution    No.    34.      This    resolution    was 
identical  with  the  second  resolution  introduced  by  Curtin,   Senate 
Joint  Resolution  No.  37. 

254  The  Shearer  resolution  was  defeated  by  the  following  vote: 
For    the    Shearer    resolution — Bagby,    Beck,     Bowman,     Dower, 

Finnegan,  Gates,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Killingsworth, 
Libby,  Murray,  Palmer,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Wei- 
don,  Woodley  and  Wyllie — 21. 

Against  the  Shearer  resolution — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chandler, 
Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Fergu- 
son, Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Ford,  Gelder,  Green,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnson, 
Geo.  H.;  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Mc- 
Donald, Moorhouse,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Ryan, 
Scott,  Shartel,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tulloch, 
Walsh,  Weisel,  White  and  Young— 49. 

255  See  footnote  213,   page  241. 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  271 

proposed  to  amend  the  Heney-Webb  bill  by  substituting 
for  its  provisions,  the  provisions  of  the  Assembly  bill, 
which  the  Assembly  had  already  passed  by  a  four-to- 
one  vote.  Chandler  made  one  important  change  in  the 
bill,  however.  He  made  his  substitute  apply  to  corpora- 
tions as  well  as  individuals.  Under  this  Chandler  sub- 
stitute, no  alien,  Asiatic  or  European,  as  individual,  or 
as  corporation,  the  majority  of  whose  capital  stock  was 
owned  by  aliens,  could  hold  title  to  the  soil  of  Cali- 
fornia.256 

Such  a  bill,  with  the  exception  of  the  provision  re- 
garding corporations,  had  already  passed  the  Assembly 
by  overwhelming  majority.  The  Senate  Judiciary  com- 
mittee, after  weeks  of  consideration,  had  presented  such 
a  bill  to  the  Senate. 

Chandler  made  a  strong  plea  for  his  amendments. 

"You  know,"  he  insisted,  "that  the  policy  of  this 
Legislature  has  been  to  pass  an  out  and  out  Alien  Land 
law.  You  have  turned  a  somersault.  I  want  to  know 
why.  This  is  not  a  question  of  dollars  and  cents  but 
of  civilization.  These  amendments  should  be  adopted." 

But  the  argument  was  advanced  that  a  general 
Alien  Land  law  could  not  pass  the  Senate.  The  Chand- 


256  The  demand  for  such  treatment  of  the  problem  was  in- 
dicated by  the  character  of  the  communications  received  at  Sacra- 
mento. Resolutions  adopted  at  a  mass  meeting  held  at  Fresno  on 
the  evening  of  May  1,  requested  the  Legislature  to  enact  a  law  to 
apply  to  all  aliens  alike,  and  to  make  citizenship  the  basis  of  land 
ownership.  These  resolutions  were  sent  to  Sacramento  by  former 
Assemblyman  A.  M.  Drew,  of  Fresno.  Mr.  Drew,  at  the  1909 
session,  introduced  the  first  important  alien  land  bill  to  be  con- 
sidered in  this  State.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature 
of  1909,"  page  203. 


272  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

ler  amendments,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  to  forty-three, 
were  defeated.257 

Other  amendments  were  offered  by  Inman  and 
Shannon,  only  to  be  voted  down  by  substantial  ma- 
jorities. 

When  the  final  vote  was  taken,  three  members  only 
— Gates,  Guiberson  and  Woodley — voted  against  the 
bill.  Seventy-two  voted  for  it.288 

Governor  Johnson  signed  the  bill.259 

257  The   Chandler  amendments  were  defeated   by   the   following 
vote: 

For  the  amendments — Alexander,  Bagby,  Brown,  Gary,  Chandler, 
Dower,  Flnnegan,  Ford,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Inman,  Killings- 
worth,  Kingsley,  Libby,  Palmer,  Polsley,  Shannon,  Shearer,  Simp- 
son, Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch,  Walsh,  Weldon  and  Wyllie — 
26. 

Against  the  amendments — Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bow- 
man, Bradford,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Clarke, 
Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Fitzgerald, 
Gabbert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Green,  Hayes,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston, 
T.  D.;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Kuck,  McDonald,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nel- 
son, Nolan,  Peairs,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Scott,  Smith,  Strine, 
Sutherland,  Wall,  Weisel,  White  and  Young— 43. 

258  The  vote  by  which  the  Heney-Webb  bill  passed  the  Assem- 
bly was  as   follows: 

For  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bagby,  Beck,  Benedict,  Blood- 
good,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Bryrnes,  Canepa, 
Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Cram, 
Dower,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Flnnegan,  Fish,  Fitzger- 
ald, Ford,  Gabbert,  Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Killings- 
worth,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Libby,  McDonald,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nelson, 
Nolan,  Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Roberts,  Ryan, 
Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Shartel,  Shearer,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith, 
Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel, 
Weldon,  White,  Wyllie  and  Young — 72. 

Against  the  bill — Gates,  Guiberson,  Woodley— 3. 

259  Soon  after  the  Legislature  had  adjourned,   and  before  Gov- 
ernor Johnson  had  signed  the  bill,  the  Governor  received  the  fol- 
lowing  communication   from   Secretary   Bryan,    requesting   that   he 
veto  the  measure: 

"Washington,    D.    C.,    May    11,    1913. 

"Hon.  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  Governor  of  California,  Sacramento: 
The  President  directs  me  to  express  his  appreciation  of  your 
courtesy  in  delaying  action  on  the  land  bill  now  before  you  until 
its  provisions  could  be  communicated  to  the  Japanese  Government 
and  considered  by  it.  His  excellency,  Baron  Chinda,  has,  on  be- 
half of  his  Government,  presented  an  earnest  protest  against  the 
measure.  As  you  have  before  you  but  two  alternatives,  viz:  to 
approve  or  to  veto,  it  will  avail  nothing  to  recall  to  your  atten- 


Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed  273 

From  the  beginning  of  the  session  until  after  the 
Heney-Webb  bill  had  been  signed  suggestions  were 
made,  that  in  the  event  of  such  a  measure  being  enacted, 
the  referendum  would  be  invoked  against  it.  President 
Moore  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  Company 
made  this  threat  early  in  January.  Bryan  strongly 
hinted  that  the  referendum  could  be  resorted  to.  After 
the  bill  had  gone  to  the  Governor,  there  were  reports 
that  the  Asiatic  Exclusion  League,  consistent  with  its 
course  on  former  occasions,  would  invoke  the  referen- 
dum against  the  bill.  Labor  Union  politicians  who  are 
identified  with  the  League  endeavored  to  create  oppo- 
sition to  the  measure.  Theodore  A.  Bell  was  identified 
with  a  similar  movement.  For  some  weeks,  there  were 
rumors  that  Bell  would  take  steps  to  have  the  measure 
put  to  referendum  vote.  But  Bell  and  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Union  Labor  politicians  received  little  encourage- 


tion  the  amendments  suggested  to  the  Legislature,  and  as  the 
President  has  already  laid  before  you  his  views  upon  the  subject, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  reiterate  them.  He  passed  over  questions  af- 
fecting treaty  rights  for  two  reasons,  first,  because  the  bill  passed 
by  the  Legislature  is  avowedly  intended  to  conform  to  treaty 
obligations,  and,  second,  because  any  conflict  complained  of  would 
be  a  matter  for  the  courts,  but  the  President  feels  justified  in  ex- 
pressing again  his  desire  that  action  on  the  subject  be  deferred 
for  this  session,  and  he  expresses  the  desire  the  more  freely  be- 
cause the  Legislature  can  be  reconvened  at  any  time  if  the  wel- 
fare of  the  State  requires  it.  He  is  fully  alive  to  the  importance 
of  removing  any  root  of  discord  which  may  create  antagonism 
between  American  citizens  and  the  subjects  of  Oriental  nations 
residing  here,  but  he  is  impelled  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  express 
the  hope  that  you  will  see  fit  to  allow  time  for  diplomatic  efforts. 
The  nations  affected  by  the  proposed  law  are  friendly  nations — 
nations  that  have  shown  themselves  willing  to  cooperate  in  the 
establishment  of  harmonious  relations  between  their  people  and 
ours.  If  a  postponement  commends  itself  to  your  judgment,  the 
President  will  be  pleased  to  cooperate  in  a  systematic  effort  to 
discover  and  correct  any  evils  that  may  exist  in  connection  with 
land  ownership  by  aliens.  W.  J.  BRYAN." 

Governor  Johnson's  reply  will  be  found  in   the  appendix. 


274  Heney-Webb  Bill  Passed 

ment  and  some  criticism.260  The  referendum  was  not 
invoked.  The  Heney-Webb  law  remains  a  statute  of 
the  State. 


zeo  The  Fresno  Republican,  in  commenting  upon  Mr.  Bell's  at- 
titude (issue  of  May  15,  1913),  said: 

"It  is  most  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  Theodore  Bell's  foolish 
proposal  to  subject  the  Alien  Land  bill  to  a  referendum  petition 
will  receive  no  support  from  any  respectable  source.  The  result 
of  such  a  referendum  is  of  course  a  foregone  conclusion.  The  vote 
of  the  people  would  be  practically  as  unanimous  as  was  the  vote 
of  the  Legislature.  This  is  conceded  even  by  so  reactionary  an 
observer  as  the  San  Francisco  Argonaut,  which  is  itself  bitterly 
opposed  to  the  Alien  Land  bill,  but  which,  for  that  very  reason, 
objects  to  renewing  the  agitation  on  the  subject  before  the  irrev- 
ocable tribunal  of  the  people,  where  the  Argonaut  estimates  the 
action  of  Governor  Johnson  and  the  Legislature  would  be  sus- 
tained by  the  vote  of  ten  to  one.  The  scheme  of  Theodore  Bell 
to  play  the  radicals  and  conservatives  against  each  other  by  pre- 
senting two  alternative  initiative  proposals,  one  more  radical  and 
the  other  more  conservative  than  the  enacted  law,  is  too  trans- 
parent a  piece  of  cheap  politics  to  deceive  the  people.  They  would 
simply  sustain  the  law  as  it  stands  and  would  thereby  put  it  prac- 
tically beyond  repeal  or  amendment  and  beyond  the  pale  of  Na- 
tional or  international  discussion." 

"Let  the  voters  beware,"  said  the  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue 
of  May  10,  1913,  "of  signing  any  petition  that  would  have  the 
effect  of  nullifying  for  at  least  eighteen  months  to  come  the  good 
work  already  accomplished  by  the  Legislature  with  regard  to  land 
acquisition  by  aliens  incapable  of  becoming  citizens." 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
THE  OIL  PIPE  LINE  BILLS. 

Without  opportunity  for  preparation,  the  Legislature, 
late  in  March,  was  confronted  with  a  problem  upon  the 
solution  of  which  depends  the  future  of  one  of  the 
State's  greatest  assets,  the  petroleum  fields.261 

Before  the  constitutional  recess,  Sutherland  in  the 
Assembly  and  Hewitt  in  the  Senate  had  introduced  a 
measure  making  pipe  lines  common  carriers.262  The 
bills  attracted  little  attention  until  late  in  March  when 
they  came  up  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee 
and  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Corporations  for  con- 
sideration. Then  began  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
and  most  important  contests  of  the  session. 

One  group  of  oil  men  appeared  before  the  commit- 
tee contending  that  unless  the  pipe  lines  were  made 
common  carriers,  the  California  oil  industry  would  fall 
into  the  grip  of  the  Standard  Oil. 

Another  group  of  oil  men  contended  as  insistently 
that  if  pipe  lines  were  made  common  carriers,  the 


261  Statistics  presented  before  Senate  and  Assembly  committees 
set  forth  that  In  1912  California  produced  90,000,000  barrels  of  oil, 
valued   at   $44,000,000.     This  was   more   oil    than   produced   by  any 
foreign    nation:    it  was   one-fourth   of   the   total   oil   supply  of   the 
world;  and  two-fifths  of  the  total  oil  supply  of  the  United  States. 

262  Assembly  Bill  1480  and   Senate  Bill   1253. 


276  The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills 

Standard  Oil  would  be  given  its  opportunity  to  crush 
out  all  competition  and  seize  the  California  fields.263 

263  That  the  pipe  line  is  the  basis  of  the  Standard  Oil  mon- 
opoly was  not  disputed.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
in  its  report  to  Congress  on  "Railroad  Discriminations  and  Mon- 
opolies in  Coal  and  Oil"  (January  28,  1907),  says: 

"At  the  basis  of  the  monopoly  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
in  the  production  and  distribution  of  petroleum  products  rests  the 
pipe  line.  The  refineries  of  the  Standard  are  located  in  various 
parts  of  the  country — upon  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  in  the  interior 
near  the  oil  fields  of  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio,  at  Chicago,  at 
Kansas  City,  and  at  various  other  points.  These  refineries  are 
all  connected  with  the  principal  oil  fields  and  with  each  other  by 
a  network  of  pipe  lines.  It  is  possible  for  the  Standard  to-day  to 
pump  oil  from  a  well  in  Indian  Territory  to  its  refinery  at  Jersey 
City. 

"The  expense  of  pumping  oil  is  very  much  less  than  the  cost  of 
transporting  it  by  rail.  It  was  said  that  the  actual  cost  of  pump- 
ing a  barrel  of  oil  100  miles  was  about  2  cents,  and  while  this 
must  vary  with  different  conditions  the  estimate  seems  to  be 
sufficiently  high  on  the  average.  The  cost  to  the  Standard  of 
transporting  a  barrel  of  oil  from  the  Kansas  field  to  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  would  not  be  much,  if  any,  above  30  cents. 

"The  advantages  which  the  possession  of  these  pipe  lines  give 
to  the  Standard  are  apparent  upon  the  surface.  The  refineries 
of  the  independent  producer  who,  as  a  rule,  has  no  pipe  line  of 
any  considerable  extent,  and  who  generally  depends  upon  that 
of  the  Standard  for  his  supply  of  crude  material,  are  located  for 
the  most  part  near  the  source  of  the  crude  supply.  Upon  the 
other  hand,  the  Standard  locates  its  refineries  near  the  great 
centers  of  distribution.  The  refinery  at  Sugar  Creek,  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  is  an  illustration.  Independent  re- 
fineries at  interior  Kansas  points  find  it  very  difficult  to  dispose 
of  their  residuum — which  we  have  designated  as  fuel  oil — to  ad- 
vantage, owing  to  the  fact  that  the  freight  rate  to  the  point  of 
consumption  is  almost  as  much  as  the  value  of  that  kind  of  oil. 
Upon  the  other  hand,  the  Standard  has  at  the  very  doors  of  its 
refinery  a  market  at  a  favorable  price  for  a  large  part  of  this 
by-product,  a  thing  of  itself  of  enormous  advantage. 

"The  distribution  of  the  refined  product  can  be  better  made 
from  a  center  of  distribution  like  Kansas  City  or  Chicago  than 
from  some  noncompetitive  point,  even  though  no  special  rates  or 
unusual  facilities  are  accorded. 

"The  possession  of  these  pipe  lines  enables  the  Standard  to 
absolutely  control  the  price  of  crude  petroleum  and  to  determine, 
therefore,  the  price  which  its  competitor  in  a  given  locality  shall 
pay.  At  the  present  time  it  is  said  that  the  Standard  is  tanking 
35,000  barrels  a  day  of  crude  oil  in  Kansas  and  Indian  Territory. 
The  total  production  is  estimated  at  75,000,  of  which  perhaps 
15,000  is  refined.  The  price  paid  for  this  oil  is  very  much  lower 
than  that  paid  in  Pennsylvania  or  in  the  Ohio  and  Indiana  fields. 
The  quality  of  the  oil  is  not  as  good  as  the  Pennsylvania,  but 
seems  to  be  fully  equal  to  the  Ohio  and  Indiana.  The  Standard 
can,  therefore,  by  pumping  this  oil  to  its  refineries  at  Chicago 
or  Cleveland  or  New  York  obtain  its  crude  petroleum  very  much 
cheaper  than  its  competitor,  for  it  can  fix  the  price  which  its 
competitor  must  pay  in  these  territories  and  can  then  obtain  the 
supply  for  its  own  refineries  largely  from  some  other  field  where 
It  has  established  a  much  lower  price.  When  ready  to  do  so, 
it  can  reverse  the  process." 


The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills  277 

For  the  California  oil  fields  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  monopoly  would,  it  was  recognized,  be  a  calamity. 
The  1913  Legislature  was  called  upon  to  avert  that  pos- 
sibility. And  probably  not  ten  men  in  the  Legislature 
were  in  a  position  to  know  of  the  conditions  in  the 
oil  fields  which  had  brought  the  disputing  groups  of  oil 
men  to  the  State  capital. 

But  one  thing  about  the  fields  the  dullest  could 
comprehend,  namely,  that  independent  oil  men  had  been 
forced  to  cap  their  wells  because  they  were  unable  to 
get  their  oil  to  market,  although  the  capacity  of  the 
pipe  lines  out  of  the  fields  was  declared  to  be  greater 
than  the  present  production. 

At  the  time  the  Legislature  was  in  session  there  were 
four  great  oil  companies  occupying  the  California  field: 
(1)  The  Standard  Oil  Company;  (2)  The  Associated 
Oil  Company,  owned  by  the  Southern  Pacific;  (3)  The 
General  Petroleum  Company,  of  which  Eugene  de  Sabla 
was  president,  and  (4)  the  Union  Oil  Company. 

Out  of  the  mid-California  oil  fields  six  pipe  lines, 
each  controlled  by  some  one  of  the  four  companies,  run 
to  points  of  shipping  and  consumption.  Of  these  six 
lines,  two,  terminating  at  San  Francisco  Bay,  were  at 
the  time  of  the  hearing,  owned  by  the  Standard  Oil 
Company;  two,  also  terminating  at  San  Francisco  Bay, 
by  the  Associated  Oil  Company ;  one,  terminating  at  Los 
Angeles,  by  the  General  Petroleum  Company;  one,  ter- 
minating at  Port  Harford,  by  the  Union  Oil  Company. 

Up  to  October,  1912,  the  independent  oil  producers 
found  sale  for  their  oil  with  the  Standard,  which  at 
least  gave  them  a  market.  But  in  October,  1912,  the 
Standard  gave  notice  that  it  would  purchase  no  more 


278  The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills 

oil  below  18  gravity.  As  sixty-five  per  cent,  of  the  oil 
produced  in  the  mid-California  fields  is  below  18  grav- 
ity, the  effect  of  this  notice  was. to  bar  more  than  half 
the  output  of  the  fields  from  possible  transportation  to 
market,  through  the  Standard's  lines. 

The  second,  and  only  other,  opportunity  for  the 
independents  to  market  their  oil  was  through  the  Inde- 
pendent Producers'  Agency  of  California. 

The  agency  is  made  up  of  some  150  independent 
oil  producers.  It  is  a  co-operative,  non-profit-making, 
mutual  concern.  The  agency's  president,  at  the  time 
the  1913  Legislature  was  in  session,  was  L.  P.  St.  Clair. 

This  mutual  organization  had  made  the  Union  Oil 
Company  its  selling  agent.  The  Union  Oil  Company 
with  the  Agency's  executive  committee  was  supposed 
to  fix  prices.  But  Timothy  A.  Spellacy,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  Agency  and  one  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee, testified  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee 
that  the  executive  committee  had  delegated  to  President 
St.  Clair  power  to  agree  with  the  Union  Oil  Company 
as  to  price.  Independent  oil  men,  by  becoming  mem- 
bers of  the  Agency,  while  they  had  no  voice  in  the 
fixing  of  the  prices  at  which  their  products  should  be 
sold,  were  able,  through  the  pipe  line  to  Port  Harford, 
controlled  by  the  Union  Oil  Company,  to  get  their  oil 
to  market.  But  the  conditions  demanded  of  the  inde- 
pendent oil  man  to  become  a  member  of  the  Agency 
were  such,  that  producers  of  the  type  of  Spellacy  re- 
fused to  commit  all  their  properties  to  the  Agency's 
policy. 

"Oil  men  who  join  the  Agency,"  said  Spellacy,  when 


The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills  279 

discussing  this  phase  of  the  situation  before  the  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee,  "are  required  to  deed  their  prop- 
erties to  the  agency.  They  are  required  to  give  the 
agency  absolute  control  over  the  selling  of  their  oil, 
price-fixing  and  all,  for  a  term  of  years.  He  who  goes 
into  the  agency  now,  must  put  his  oil  out  of  his  hands 
for  seven  years." 

The  close  affiliation  between  the  Standa'rd  Oil  Com- 
pany and  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  practically 
made  the  four  pipe  lines  controlled  by  these  companies 
Standard  Oil  lines.  There  remained  the  line  of  the 
General  Petroleum  Company  and  the  line  of  the  Union 
Oil  Company. 

The  General  Petroleum  Company  was,  at  the  time 
the  Legislature  met,  the  unknown  quantity  in  the  situa- 
tion. It  had  come  into  existence  suddenly,  with  enor- 
mous backing,  about  the  time  the  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany announced  that  it  would  no  longer  buy  California 
oil  under  18  gravity.  Very  openly,  the  charge  was 
made  at  Sacramento  that  the  General  Petroleum  Com- 
pany was  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  group.264  This 

264  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission's  report  on  "Railroad 
Discriminations  and  Monopolies  in  Coal  and  Oil,"  says  of  the 
methods  employed  by  the  Standard  Oil  Company  to  crush  com- 
petition: 

"(1.)  The  Standard  Oil  Company  has  repeatedly  bought  out 
its  competitor  and  after  becoming  the  owner  of  the  competing 
company  has  continued  to  operate  it  under  the  old  name,  carry- 
ing the  idea  to  the  public  that  the  company  was  still  an  Inde- 
pendent operator  and  in  actual  competition  with  the  Standard. 

"(2.)  It  has  used  such  independent  companies  as  have  become 
its  own  by  purchase,  and  has  sometimes  organized  independent 
companies,  for  the  purpose  of  killing  off  competitors.  The  prac- 
tice has  been  for  the  so-called  independent  company  to  reduce 
the  price,  frequently  handling  what  are  supposed  to  be  different 
brands  of  oil,  while  the  Standard  maintained  its  rates.  The 
operation  of  these  fake  Independent  concerns  by  the  Standard  has 
been  one  of  the  most  effective  means  of  destroying  competition. 

"(3).  It  has  habitually  reduced  the  price  against  its  com- 
petitor in  a  particular  locality  while  maintaining  its  price  at 


280  The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills 

brought  five  of  the  six  pipe  lines  under  suspicion  of 
Standard  Oil  control.  But  one  line  remained,  that  con- 
trolled by  the  Union  Oil  Company. 

But  shortly  before  the  Legislature  convened,  the 
Union  Oil  Company  had  given  the  General  Petroleum 
Company  an  option  on  all  its  properties  for  $17,000,000, 
$500,000  of  which  had  actually  been  paid.  This  prac- 
tically carried  along  with  it  the  Independent  Producers' 
Agency,  which  had  made  the  Union  Oil  Company  its 
selling  agent,  and  which  was  dependent  upon  the 
Union  Oil  Company's  pipe  line  to  get  the  oil  of  the 
independent  producers,  members  of  the  agency,  to 
market. 

Such   being  the   facts,   independent  oil  men  of  the 


other  places  where  the  business  was  not  profitable  to  the  com- 
petitor. When  the  competition  was  destroyed,  It  restored  the 
former  price,  and  often  advanced  that  price. 

"(4.)  It  has  sold  different  brands  at  different  prices  from  the 
same  barrel.  It  would  not  be  surprising  if  in  the  heat  of  com- 
petition subordinates  of  that  company  had  at  times  resorted  to 
practices  of  this  kind,  nor  would  such  fact  be  especially  worthy 
of  mention.  It  is  surprising  that  its  responsible  agents,  and,  in 
one  case,  a  prominent  official,  should  have  approved  and  sug- 
gested such  methods. 

"(5.)  It  has  paid  the  employees  of  independent  companies  for 
information  as  to  the  business  of  those  competitors,  and  it  has 
paid  the  employees  of  industrial  companies  to  secure  the  adop- 
tion of  its  oil  in  preference  to  that  of  its  competitors.  The 
Standard,  as  already  said,  follows  every  barrel  of  independent  oil 
to  its  destination.  Its  agents  are  instructed  to  secure  the  cus- 
tomers of  its  competitors  at  whatever  sacrifice,  and  value  of  the 
agent  is  determined  largely  by  his  ability  to  do  so. 

"(6.)  It  has  tampered  with  oil  inspectors  in  different  States. 
We  do  not  think  this  evidence  establishes  corrupt  conduct  upon 
the  part  of  any  such  inspector,  but  it  does  show  carelessness  and 
incompetence  resulting  in  advantage  to  the  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany. The  laws  of  the  several  States,  with  respect  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  oil,  are  singularly  defective,  and  this  has  also  been  turned 
by  the  Standard  to  its  profit. 

"The  only  knowledge  this  Commission  has  of  the  competitive 
methods  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  is  derived  from  the  evi- 
dence taken  in  this  investigation.  We  have  already  said  that 
this  testimony  was  under  oath,  that  the  witnesses  were  subject 
to  cross-examination  by  the  attorneys  of  the  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany, that  that  company  was  given  permission  to  explain  or 
rebut  the  facts  shown." 


The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills  281 

type  of  Spellacy,  were  asking  themselves  what  would 
become  of  the  independent  oil  men  who  had  deeded 
their  properties  to  the  agency,  if  the  agency  fell  into 
the  grip  of  the  General  Petroleum,  and  the  General 
Petroleum  turned  out  to  be  controlled  by  the  Standard 
Oil. 

They  accordingly  refused  to  turn  their  properties 
over  to  the  Independent  Producers'  Agency.  There  was 
therefore  no  practical  way  open  for  them  to  get  their 
oil  to  market.265  They  capped  their  wells. 

But  these  oil  men  didn't  propose  to  sit  idly  by  while 
over-head  charges  ate  up  their  properties.  They  accord- 
ingly went  before  the  Legislature  asking  legislation  to 
declare  pipe  lines  common  carriers,  and  to  place  them 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  Railroad  Commis- 
sion. 

Francis  J.  Heney,  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, stated  the  case  of  the  proponents  of  the  measures. 

"The  Standard  Oil  Company,"  said  Heney,  "has 
monopolized  the  oil  industry  of  the  rest  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  moving  now  on  California.  The  time  has 
arrived  when  we  must  either  declare  that  this  great 
natural  energy  of  oil  must  remain  free  and  independent 
or  consent  to  its  monopoly.  A  Wall  street  financier  has 
said  that  after  the  eggs  are  once  scrambled,  you  cannot 
unscramble  them.  The  eggs  have  not  yet  been  scram- 

205  They  could,  of  course,  have  sent  their  oil  out  by  rail  at  a 
cost  of  42  cents  a  barrel.  It  was  held  before  the  committees, 
that  the  oil  carried  by  pipe  line  could  be  put  down  In  San  Fran- 
cisco for  eight  cents,  and  In  Los  Angeles  for  five.  The  average 
cost  of  producing  a  barrel  of  oil  is  35  cents.  This,  plus  rail  trans- 
portation charges,  made  the  cost  of  putting  a  barrel  of  oil  into 
San  Francisco  or  Los  Angeles,  77  cents.  The  selling  price  of  oil 
was  75  cents.  To  have  sent  the  oil  out  by  rail  would  have 
meant  a  loss  of  two  cents  on  every  barrel  shipped. 


282  The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills 

bled  in  California.  We  must  prevent  their  being  scram- 
bled. We  must  meet  this  monopoly  at  the  State  line  and 
say  to  it  in  unmistakable  language  that  it  shall  not  de- 
stroy this  great  industry  of  California." 

And  to  this  end,  Heney  urged  that  the  pipe  lines 
within  the  State  be  made  common  carriers. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  opponents  of  the  common 
carrier  bill  were  positive  in  their  statement  that  Stand- 
ard Oil  was  back  of  the  measure.  They  admitted  that 
the  pipe  line  is  the  corner  stone  of  monopoly,  but  they 
insisted  that  it  is  likewise  the  cornerstone  of  successful 
competition.  They  denied  that  the  General  Petroleum 
Company  was  in  any  way  connected  with  the  Standard 
Oil,  E.  J.  De  Sabla,  Jr.,  president  of  General  Petroleum, 
making  affidavit  to  that  effect.  They  held  that  the  bill, 
so  far  as  it  attempted  to  make  the  pipe  lines  of  the 
Standard  Oil  common  carriers  to  be  unconstitutional; 
that  even  though  the  Standard  pipe  lines  were  made 
common  carriers,  nevertheless,  the  Standard  would  be 
benefited  by  enactment  of  the  measure;  that  the  effect 
of  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  be  to  fill  the  pipe  lines 
of  the  Standard's  competitors  up  with  low  gravity  oil, 
unfit  for  refining,  and  thus  prevent  successful  competi- 
tion with  the  Standard  in  the  gasolines  and  other  dis- 
tillates. 

Such  was  the  problem  upon  which  the  Legislature 
was  called  to  act.  It  was  a  problem  upon  the  solution 
of  which  the  industrial  independence  of  the  State  in 
large  measure  hung.  It  was  closely  akin  to  the  Con- 
servation problem.  That  the  Senators  and  Assembly- 
men who  attempted  its  solution  had  the  machinery  for 


The  Oil  Pipe  Line  Bills  283 

collecting  correct  data  bearing  upon  it,  or  had  the  time 
to  deal  with  it,  or  the  expert  training  and  knowledge, 
none  pretended  to  say. 

After  weeks  of  argument  the  Legislature,  acting 
with  the  best  light  it  could  secure,  decided  to  make  the 
pipe  lines  common  carriers.  Bills  to  that  end  were 
enacted.  Governor  Johnson  signed  the  common  carrier 
measures. 

Another  measure  (Assembly  Bill  52)  bearing  directly 
upon  conditions  in  the  oil  fields,  passed  both  Houses. 
It  provided  for  organization  and  government  of  dis- 
tricts for  the  purpose  of  protecting  lands  producing  gas 
or  oil  from  damage  from  intrusion  of  water. 

Oil  men  declared  that  the  oil  sands  should  be  pro- 
tected against  such  water  intrusion.  But  the  point  was 
also  made  that  the  enactment  of  the  bill  as  presented 
would  place  the  small  producer  at  the  mercy  of  the 
larger.  Generally  speaking,  oil  men  who  were  urging 
legislation  to  make  pipe  lines  common  carriers  did  not 
support  this  bill.  The  charge  was  openly  made  that  its 
passage,  especially  in  Kern  county,  would  place  the 
small  producer  at  the  mercy  of  the  Standard  and  South- 
ern Pacific  companies. 

Governor  Johnson  did  not  sign  this  measure. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  MORAL  ISSUES. 

During  the  years  California  was  under  the  rule  of 
the  Southern  Pacific,  the  tenderloin  element — brothel 
keeper,  saloon  keeper,  gambler — made  one  of  the 
machine's  most  dependable  groups.  This  group  was 
permitted  to  control  Committees  on  Public  Morals,  to 
the  end  that  measures  striking  at  gambling,  saloon  or 
prostitution  exploiting  interests  could  be  blocked  in 
committee.206  But  with  the  breaking  down  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  machine,  the  tenderloin  lost  its  grip 
on  the  State  Legislature.267 

At  the  1909  session,  when  the  movement  against 
the  machine  was  given  its  first  pronounced  expression, 
an  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was  passed,  which  was 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  that  form  of  gambling  in 
California.268 

At  the  1911  session,  another  step  forward  was  made 
in  the  passage  of  a  Local  Option  law,  which  gives 
every  community  power  to  decide  at  the  polls  whether 
or  not  saloons  shall  be  licensed  in  that  community.269 

zeo  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,  Chapters 
VI  and  VII. 

267  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"   page  28, 
organization  of  the  Senate  Public  Morals  Committee. 

268  A   partial   exception   must   be   made   to   this   statement.     At 
San  Francisco,  owing  to  the  inability  of  the  authorities  to  enforce 
the  law,   this  form  of  gambling  has  continued. 

26»  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  Chapters 
XV,  XVI,  XVII.  The  fight  made  against  the  Local  Option  bill 
at  the  1911  session  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  legis- 
lative history  of  the  State. 


The  Moral  Issues  285 

Under  this  law,  nearly  a  thousand  saloons  have  been 
closed  in  California.  This  is  important.  But  the  best 
effect  of  the  Local  Option  law  has  been  that  it  has 
rendered  investment  in  saloon  properties  insecure.  For- 
merly such  investments  were,  from  a  dividend-returning 
standpoint,  regarded  highly.  Exploiting  capital  invested 
largely  in  such  enterprises.  But  under  the  Local  Option 
law,  the  saloon-backing  capitalist  may  at  any  time  have 
his  investment  made  useless  by  an  adverse  vote  of  the 
community.  Instead  of  promoting  the  groggeries,  there- 
fore, capital,  unashamed  of  such  investments  but  realiz- 
ing their  insecurity,  naturally  seeks  to  withdraw  from 
them. 

The  third  blow  at  tenderloin  interests  was  delivered 
at  the  1913  session,  when  the  Redlight  Abatement  act 
was  passed. 

The  exploitation  of  the  unfortunate  women  of  the 
underworld  offers  to  the  investors  in  dirty  enterprises, 
and  to  the  corrupt  politician,  the  most  profitable  of  all 
opportunities.  The  political  and  financial  exploiters  of 
the  social  evil  have  millions  of  unclean  profits  at  stake. 
Their  opposition  to  legislation  which  may  interfere  with 
such  profits  is  even  stronger  than  that  offered  to  anti- 
gambling  measures  and  the  Local  Option  legislation.269* 
Through  its  domination  of  the  Legislature  during 
the  days  of  machine  rule,  the  tenderloin  element  had 
been  able  not  only  to  block  legislation  adverse  to  its 
interests,  but  to  make  itself  fairly  secure  in  its  activities. 
Controlling  Legislatures  and  Boards  of  Supervisors,  mu- 


269a  The  passage   of   the   Abatement  act  will   be   considered   In 
another  chapter. 


286  The  Moral  Issues 

nicipal  councils,  peace  officers  and  even  courts,270  the 
exploiters  of  vice  continued  to  extend  their  activities, 
until  public  protest  practically  died  out.  The  road 
house,  deriving  its  principal  revenue  from  the  ruin  of 
young  girls,  the  exploited  prize  fight,  which  had  taken 
the  place  of  the  legitimate  sparring  contest,  the  "French 
Restaurant"  assignation  house  of  the  large  cities,  the 
gambling  club,  have  in  some  communities  been  taken 
by  the  public  as  a  matter  of  course.271  And  when  the 
1913  Legislature  attempted  to  break  down  the  security 
which  has  been  given  vice  exploitation,  cries  of  "in- 


270  The   part   played   by   the   courts   in   strengthening   the   posi- 
tion of  the  tenderloin,   should  not  be  overlooked.     As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  same  influences  which  in  the  machine  days  dictated  the 
selection    of    legislators,    dictated    the    selection    of    judges.      The 
rulings    of    Justices    of    the    Peace    at    San    Francisco    render    the 
gambling    element    practically    immune    against    law    enforcement, 
while    we    find    the    Supreme    Court    of    the    State    declaring    of    a 
man  who  put  a  little  girl  fifteen  years  old  into  a  house  of  prosti- 
tution,  that  he   may   have  acted   from   a   "spirit  of  kindness,"   his 
desire  "evidently  being"  that  the  child  "might  have  a  fixed  abode, 
where  she  could  get  more  customers."     See  The  People  vs.  Flores, 
160   California   Reports,    page    769. 

271  Judge    William    C.    Van    Fleet,    of    the    United    States    Dis- 
trict    Court,     in     passing    sentence     upon     Diggs     and     Caminetti, 
convicted    of   taking   young  'girls    into    another    State    for    immoral 
purposes,   took  occasion   to   touch   upon   Society's   responsibility  for 
the    conditions    which    contributed    to    the    downfall    of    the    two 
young  men. 

"I  think,"  said  Judge  Van  Fleet,  "that  the  evidence  discloses 
very  clearly  that  drink  had  its  paralyzing  hand  upon  your  sleep- 
Ing  consciences  during  the  period  when  you  were  debauching 
these  girls,  and  society  has,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  answer  for 
that.  The  responsibility  for  the  presence  of  the  saloon,  the 
dance  hall  and  the  roadhouse,  with  all  their  debauching  Influences, 
rests,  I  think,  upon  society.  However,  that  does  not  enable  me 
to  exculpate  you  from  the  consequences  of  your  offense,  but  I  am 
going  to  take  them  Into  consideration,  and  I  have  dona  so  in 
reaching  the  determination  that  I  have  come  to  as  to  your 
punishment." 


The  Moral  Issues  287 

terference  with  personal  liberty,"  272  and  of  "freak  leg- 
islation," were  raised.273 

The  principal  point  of  attack  was  the  Senate  Public 
Morals  Committee.  Vice-exploiters  had  controlled  this 
committee  for  so  long  that  they  were  offended  when  the 
1913  committee  would  not  stifle  measures  which  affected 
their  interests.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  committee  con- 
sidered the  measures  sent  to  it  on  their  merits,  passed 
favorably  upon  those  which  it  deemed  desirable,  and 
unfavorably  upon  those  which  it  regarded  as  bad.274 

272  The  misconception  of  "personal  liberty"  privileges  is  one  of 
the   astonishing   phases   of   the   tolerance    of   immorality  and   vice. 
Interference    with   the   activities   of   gambler,    divekeeper   or  liber- 
tine,  is   resisted  on    the   ground   that   such   interference   strikes   at 
"personal    liberty." 

At  the  Diggs-Caminetti  trials,  Judge  Van  Fleet  made  clear 
the  fact  there  is  no  such  thing  as  personal  liberty  to  commit 
crime.  One  of  the  citizens,  for  example,  drawn  for  jury  service, 
had  not,  under  examination,  made  clear  his  understanding  of  the 
term  "imported  for  immoral  purpose."  Judge  Van  Fleet  ac- 
cordingly took  him  in  hand,  the  following  testimony  being  brought 
out: 

"The  Court.  Q. — Well,  what  do  you  mean  by  immoral  pur- 
poses? What  is  your  interpretation  of  immoral  purposes?  Put- 
ting them  in  a  house  of  prostitution  and  living  off  their  earnings? 
A.  Or  to  turn  them  over  to  other  people  for  immoral  purposes. 

"The  Court.  Q. — For  a  like  purpose?  A.  Yes.  I  draw  a 
distinction  between  the  personal  liberty  of  people  regarding  these 
matters  and  publicly  using  people  for  that  purpose. 

"The  Court.  Q. — Mr.  Hanchett,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a 
personal  liberty  to  commit  crime,  and  the  sooner  people  recognize 
that  the  better.  I  am  satisfied  without  further  examination  to 
excuse  this  juror." 

273  The  opponents  of  such  legislation   did  not  limit  themselves 
to   decrying  the   moral   measures.     At  least   one   dastardly  attempt 
was   made   to   involve   a   legislator  prominent    in    the    campaign    for 
the  passage  of  the  Red  Light  Abatement  act  and  other  desirable 
measures,    in    a    scandal    which    would    not    only    have    meant    his 
ruin,    but  would    probably   have   given    the    an ti- vice    movement    in 
the    Legislature    a    setback    which    might    have    resulted    in    the 
defeat   of  all   the   so-called   moral   measures.     But    the    instigators 
of    the    plot    suddenly    were    made    aware    that    their    movements 
were   being  closely  followed.     One   of   them   left    Sacramento,    and 
the  plot  fell   through.     At   the  1909   session   a  similar  attempt  was 
made  to  involve  a  prominent  anti-machine  member  to  break  down 
his   advocacy  of  the   passage   of  an   effective   Direct    Primary   law. 

274  The   committee    consisted   of   Butler,    Avey,    Hewitt,    Brown, 
Bryant,    Grant    and    Campbell.      Of    the    seven    members,    Bryant 
alone    gave    indication    of    intolerance    and    inability    to    give    the 
measures    before    the    committee    consideration    on    their    merits. 
See    Senator    Bryant's    record    on    such    issues,    Table    HI    of    the 
Appendix. 


288  The  Moral  Issues 

For  this,  the  committee  was  denounced  and  ridiculed, 
and  the  Legislature  was  denounced  and  ridiculed,  until 
throughout  the  State  the  feeling  was  created  that  the 
Legislature  might  be  going  too  far  in  vice-regulation 
and  abatement.  Largely  on  account  of  this  sentiment 
came  the  defeat  of  measures  to  restore  boxing  contests 
to  the  sphere  of  legitimate  sports,  and  of  such  measures 
as  the  Guill  bill,  aimed  at  a  gambling  element  which 
openly  evades  the  anti-gambling  laws,276  and  the  anti- 
lottery  bills,  intended  to  strengthen  the  codes  to  the  end 

275  The  Guill  bill  (Assembly  Bill  1236),  struck  from  the  codes 
the  "exception"  under  which  much  of  the  gambling  carried  on  in 
California  is  conducted. 

Section  330  of  the  Penal  Code  names  the  gambling  games 
which  are  prohibited  in  California.  Draw  poker  is  not  included 
among  those  prohibited.  The  section  further  prohibits  gambling 
by  "means  of  any  banking  or  percentage  game."  Draw  poker  is 
not  considered  a  percentage  game,  and  the  defense  which  pro- 
prietors of  gambling  establishments  when  arrested  put  up  is  that 
the  games  played  at  their  establishments  are  not  percentage 
games.  The  Guill  bill  eliminated  all  possible  defense  of  this 
character. 

The  measure  included  draw  poker  among  the  games  which  the 
codes  specifically  declare  shall  not  be  played  for  gain.  It  then 
struck  from  the  law  all  reference  to  "banking"  and  percentage 
games,  making  it  unlawful  to  play  for  gain  any  game  played 
with  cards,  dice  or  mechanical  device.  The  passage  of  this  bill 
would  not  only  have  closed  gambling  places  which  operate  under 
the  technical  weakness  of  the  law  as  it  now  stands,  but  would 
have  banished  the  dice  machines  and  games,  which  have  largely 
taken  the  place  of  the  nickel-in-the-slot  machines,  outlawed  at 
the  legislative  session  of  1911. 

This  measure  actually  passed  the  Assembly  on  March  24,  by 
a  vote  of  45  to  13.  (For  vote,  see  Section  "J,"  Table  IV,  As- 
sembly votes,  Appendix.)  Schmitt  voted  in  the  affirmative  that 
he  might  secure  reconsideration.  The  measure  was  amended  on 
reconsideration.  It  did  not  again  come  to  vote. 

The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  (issue  of  April  4,  1913),  quotes 
Assemblyman  Slater,  of  Santa  Rosa,  as  saying  of  this  measure 
when  it  was  up  under  reconsideration: 

"We  have  gone  crazy  on  this  subject  of  freaky  and  nutty 
measures  that  are  being  treated  seriously  in  this  House.  I  want 
to  serve  notice  right  now  that  I  am  going  to  vote  against  every 
one  of  these  freak  and  foolish  bills  from  this  on." 

Continuing  its   report  of  the   debate,    the   Chronicle   said: 

"Schmitt  of  San  Francisco  remarked  that  possibly  the  long 
debate  over  the  gambling  bill  and  its  freaky  provisions  might 
serve  a  good  purpose. 

"  'It  has  allowed  us  to  pause  in  our  mad  rush  of  legislation 
here,'  said  Schmitt.  'It  seems  really  good  to  hear  a  bill  discussed 
h«re  without  having  it  voted  on  and  passed  with  a  rush.'  " 


The  Moral  Issues  289 

that  the  technical  defenses  of  law-defying  lottery  pro- 
moters might  be  broken  down.2™ 

The  Morgenstern  bill  2"  was  also  aimed  at  the  gam- 
bling element.  Had  it  become  a  law  illegal  gambling 
and  pool-selling  would  have  been  made  financially  in- 
secure, and  therefore  impractical.  The  measure  met 
with  strong  resistance.  It  was  denounced  as  a  "cinch 
bill,"  and  ridiculed  as  a  "freak  measure."  Neverthe- 
less, its  author  pressed  its  passage,  and,  after  many  de- 
lays, succeeded  in  forcing  it  through  both  Houses,  al- 
though he  was  unable  to  prevent  its  amendment.  The 
bill  did  not,  however,  become  a  law.  It  was  among  the 
measures  passed  during  the  last  days  of  the  session 
which  did  not  receive  the  Governor's  signature. 

The  liquor  interests  attempted  to  break  down  the 
provisions  of  the  1911  Local  Option  law,  by  amending 
that  measure  to  permit  the  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors  in 
hotels  in  dry  territory.278  The  measure  was  regarded 
as  a  try-out  of  the  Local  Option  law,  and  attacked  that 
measure  at  its  weakest  point.  The  Senate  Public  Morals 


276  Assembly    bills    106,    333,    334,    335    and    336,    and    Senate    bill 
143.     The  Assembly  bills  were  held  in  the  Assembly  Public  Morals 
Committee    until    the    last    day    of    the    session.       Senate    Bill    143 
passed    the    Senate    (for    vote    see    Appendix,    Table   III).      In    the 
Assembly  it  was  referred  to  the  Public  Morals  Committee.     It  got 
no  further. 

277  Assembly  Bill  1581.      This  bill  was  aimed  directly  at  those 
who    operate    gambling1    establishments    in    defiance    of    law.      It 
provided  that  every  person,  whether  husband,  wife,   child,   parent, 
guardian  or  employer,  who  might  be  injured  in  person  or  property 
or  means   of  support  by  reason   of  loss   of  money  or  other  thing 
of  value   in   any  game   of   chance   prohibited    by  the   laws    of   the 
State,    shall    have   a    right    of   action,    against    person,    association 
or  corporation  which   shall   directly  or  indirectly  cause  such  loss. 
Owners   of   buildings    who   knowingly   permit   gambling   to    be   car- 
ried on  in  them,  were  made  jointly  liable  with  the  gamblers  them- 
selves   to    the    persons    injured. 

278  The  measure  was  introduced  by  Owens  in  the  Senate,   Sen- 
ate Bill  1017;   and  by  Ryan  in  the  Assembly,  Assembly  Bill  1266. 


290  The  Moral  Issues 

Committee  returned  it  to  the  Senate  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  do  not  pass.  The  measure  did  not 
come  to  vote.  The  companion  bill  in  the  Assembly  was 
returned  from  the  Public  Morals  Committee  without 
recommendation.  The  Assembly  took  no  action  upon  it. 

One  of  the  most  hotly  contested  measures  of  the 
session  was  the  Kehoe  bill  to  prevent  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cants within  the  grounds  of,  or  in  the  vicinity  of,  the 
Panama-Pacific  Exposition.279 

The  Exposition  management  opposed  this  bill  vig- 
orously. Frank  S.  Brittain,  general  attorney  for  the 
Exposition  company,  appeared  before  a  joint  meeting 
of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  Public  Morals  Committees 
to  protest  against  the  bill's  passage.  Mr.  Brittain's  pres- 
entation was  chiefly  notable  for  his  statement  that  the 
Women's  Board  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  had 
adopted  resolutions  in  opposition  to  the  enactment  of 
such  legislation.  He  read  from  the  list  of  directors  of 
the  organization  the  names  of  several  members,  to  indi- 
cate the  high  character  of  the  membership  of  the  or- 
ganization opposed  to  such  legislation.  Among  the 
names  read  was  that  of  Mrs.  John  Bidwell,  widow  of 
the  late  General  Bidwell.  Mrs.  Bidwell  is  prominently 
connected  with  temperance  work. 

In  replying  to  Mr.  Brittain,  Bishop  E.  H.  Hughes 
stated  that  he  doubted  very  much  whether  Mrs.  John 
Bidwell  would  approve  such  resolutions  or  sanction  the 
use  of  her  name  in  connection  with  them.  It  is  interest- 

279  Senate  Bill  384.  The  measure  prohibited  the  serving  of 
alcoholic  liquors  in  any  building-  or  upon  the  grounds,  or  within 
150  y°rds  of  the  exterior  boundaries  of  any  such  building  or 
grounds  used  for  the  purpose  of  an  exposition  aided  by  funds 
furnished  by  the  State. 


The  Moral  Issues  291 

ing  to  note  that  a  few  days  later  the  Senate  received  a 
communication  from  Mrs.  Bidwell  denying  all  knowl- 
edge of  the  resolutions,  and  stating  that  she  would  have 
opposed  them  had  she  known  they  were  under  con- 
sideration.280 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  pointed  out  that  the  suc- 
cessfully conducted  Alaska- Yukon-Pacific  Exposition  at 
Seattle  had  been  conducted  without  liquor-selling  ad- 
juncts,281 and  held  that  the  same  course  should  be  fol- 
lowed at  the  San  Francisco  Exposition. 

280  Mrs.   Bidwell's   communication  will  be  found  in  the   Senate 
Journal  for  April  4,   1913.     It  Is  as  follows: 

"Chico,  Cal.,  April  3,  1913. — Lieutenant  Governor  Wallace,  Pres- 
ident of  the  Senate,  State  Capitol,  Sacramento:  It  has  pained 
and  surprised  me  to  be  quoted  by  Attorney  Brittain  in  his  argu- 
ments against  the  Kehoe  bill  at  the  public  hearing  of  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Morals  in  the  Judiciary  Chamber  at  the  Capitol, 
Tuesday  evening,  April  1st,  that  I,  Mrs.  John  Bidwell,  was 
against  a  dry  exposition,  my  name  being  read  by  him  as  one  of 
the  committee  that  drafted  the  resolutions  condemning  the  Kehoe 
bill.  As  a  member  of  the  "Woman's  Board  of  the  Panama-Pacific 
Exposition,  I  declare  that  I  know  nothing  of  these  resolutions, 
which  I  would  emphatically  have  opposed  had  I  known  thereof. 
My  position  on  this  question  is  so  well  known  that  I  cannot  be- 
lieve my  name  could  be  affixed  to  those  resolutions.  I  request 
that  this  letter  be  read  in  the  Senate  and  also  made  public 
through  the  daily  Journal.  MRS.  JOHN  BIDWELL." 

281  George  F.  Cotterill,  Mayor  of  Seattle,  wrote  concerning  the 
effect  of   the   "dry"   policy  upon    the  Alaska- Yukon-Pacific   Expo- 
sition.    He   said: 

"While  probably  some  of  the  concessionnaires  would  have 
liked  to  have  had  opportunity  to  sell  liquor,  and  those  particular 
ones  might  have  made  more  money,  it  was  a  matter  of  common 
talk  and  frequent  public  comment  that  the  absence  of  liquor- 
selling  concessions  gave  a  larger  general  business  to  the  legiti- 
mate concessions  in  that  part  of  the  fair  grounds  which  in  our 
case  was  designated  "The  Paystreak."  More  people  who  visited 
the  fair  grounds  thronged  down  "The  Paystreak"  and  patronized 
the  concessions  generally  than  would  have  done  so  if  there  had 
been  liquor-selling  concessions  here  and  there  which  would  have 
given  a  different  character  altogether  to  the  entire  vicinity. 

"After  the  Fair  there  were  frequent  interviews  and  quite  a 
number  of  official  and  semi-official  statements,  all  evidencing  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Fair  management  from  a  business  standpoint 
that  there  had  been  no  sale  of  liquor  upon  the  grounds.  It  should 
be  understood  that  this  absence  of  liquor  selling  extended  not 
only  to  the  matter  of  ordinary  sale  of  liquor  at  bars  but  also 
excluded  any  serving  of  liquor  with  meals  at  any  of  the  hotel  or 
restaurant  concessions.  It  was  an  absolute  prohibition  of  liquor 
selling  upon  the  Exposition  grounds. 

"I   am   sure   that   San   Francisco   and   the   Panama   Exposition 


292  The  Moral  Issues 

The  Kehoe  bill 282  was  amended  to  meet  objections 
raised  by  the  Exposition  people,  but  the  amendments  did 
not  end  Exposition  opposition.  Down  to  the  final  vote 
the  Exposition  people  contested  its  passage.  The  meas- 
ure was  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  fourteen 
to  twenty-three.283 

One  anti-saloon  measure  which  caused  hours  of 
heated  debate,  was  introduced  independent  of  the  anti- 
saloon  element.  It  was  the  so-called  One-o'clock  Clos- 
ing bill,  introduced  by  Senator  Owens  of  Richmond.28* 
The  bill  was  strongly  contested  by  the  San  Francisco 
delegation.  When  it  came  up  in  the  Senate  for  passage, 


management  will  make  no  mistake  from  a  business  standpoint, 
and  certainly  will  emphasize  a  high  moral  position  which  will 
attract  to  visit  the  Fair  in  1915  the  people  all  over  our  country 
who  do  not  spend  money  for  liquors  and  therefore  will  have 
more  money  to  spend  for  legitimate  pleasure  seeking,  by  ex- 
cluding the  sale  of  liquor,  than  any  other  method  of  advertising 
which  can  be  brought  to  bear.  Very  truly  yours,  (Signed)  Geo. 
F.  Cotterill,  Mayor." 

282  The    idea    that    only   fanatics    supported    this    measure    is    a 
mistaken    one,    born    of    much    claquing    of    liquor    interests,    and 
ignorance   of  the   facts.     The   measure    had   the   support,    not   only 
of    large    business    interests    throughout    the    country    that    expect 
to   place    exhibitions   at    the   Fair,    but    by    some   of    the    best    and 
strongest   men    of    the    Legislature.      "I  vote    'aye'    on    Senate   Bill 
384,"  said  Senator  Caminetti,  "for  the  reason  that  I  do  not  believe 
that  an  exposition  such  as  is  proposed   to   be  held   in   1915   should 
be  permitted   to  allow   saloons   as   such   on   the   exposition   site." 

283  The    vote    by    which    the    Kehoe    "dry    exposition"    bill    was 
defeated  was   as   follows: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Brown,  Butler,  Cami- 
netti, Cogswell,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  and 
Thompson — 14. 

Against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Breed,  Bryant, 
Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes, 
Hans,  Juilliard,  Lyon,  Owens,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan, 
Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 23. 

284  Senate    Bill    142.      As    originally    introduced,    the    measure 
required    all    saloons    to    close    at    1    a.    m.    and    to    remain    closed 
until  5  a.   m.     The  hours  were  changed  in  the  Assembly  to  from 
2    to    6   a.    m. 


The  Moral  Issues  293 

Senator  Finn285  offered  an  amendment  to  exclude  San 
Francisco  and  other  cities  from  its  provisions.  Finn's 
amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  ten  to  twenty- 
seven.286 

Regan  attempted  to  amend  by  having  the  hours  of 
closing  changed  from  1  to  5,  to  2  to  6.  But  Regan's 
amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  fifteen  to  twenty- 
four.287  The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  twenty- 
nine  to  nine.288 


285  When    Finn    was    arguing    against    the    measure,     Senator 
Caminetti  interrupted  him  with  a  question: 

"Don't  you  think,  Senator  Finn,"  asked  Caminetti,  "the  people 
of  San  Francisco  can  drink  enough  whisky  in  the  remaining 
twenty  hours  to  keep  up  her  record  for  lascivlousness?"  Finn 
started  to  make  reply  about  the  unfairness  of  his  interrogator 
when  Caminetti  thundered:  "The  liquor  interests  of  this  State 
are  going  too  far  when  they  enter  protest  against  a  law  as  mild 
and  reasonable  as  this.  If  they  can't  agree  to  close  their  saloons 
between  1  a.  m.  and  5  a.  m.  then  it  may  become  necessary  to 
say  to  them  'you  cannot  sell  at  all.'  I  wish  to  give  warning  to 
these  people  in  the  name  of  God  and  liberty,  let  our  boys  and 
girls  be  protected  from  the  hell-holes  of  vice  for  at  least  four 
hours  in  the  twenty-four.  Give  us  this  legislation  as  a  starter 
and  I  stand  ready  to  introduce  further  methods  that  will  make 
you  sit  up  and  think." 

286  The  vote  by  which  the  Finn  amendment  was  defeated  was: 
For    the    amendment — Beban,    Bryant,    Cassidy,    Finn,    Gerdes, 

Hans,    Juilliard,    Lyon,    Regan,    and    Tyrrell — 10. 

Against  the  amendment — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cart- 
wright,  Cogswell,  Flint,  Gates,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe, 
Larkins,  Mott,  Owens,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
and  Wright— 27. 

287  For  detailed  vote  see  Table  III  of  the  Appendix. 

288  The  vote  by  which  the  One  o"  Clock  Closing  bill  passed  the 
Senate  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Boynton,  Breed,  Brown, 
Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Curtin,  Finn,  Flint, 
Gates,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens, 
Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 29 

Against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall,  Bryant,  Cartwright,  Cassidy, 
Gerdes,  Hans,  Juilliard,  and  Regan — 9 

Finn  voted  for  the  bill  that  he  might  secure  reconsideration 
of  the  vote  by  which  it  had  passed. 

On  Finn's  motion  to  reconsider,  the  bill  was  held  up  for  nearly 
two  weeks.  The  record  on  this  motion  is  suggestive  of  the 


294  The  Moral  Issues 

The  fight  against  the  bill  was  continued  in  the  As- 
sembly. Some  of  the  most  extraordinary  of  arguments 
were  urged  against  it.  It  was  solemnly  contended,  for 
example,  that  if  the  bill  were  passed,  the  San  Francisco 
society  dances  led  by  Mr.  "Ned"  Greenway  would  have 
to  be  discontinued,  for  unless  the  dancers  could  secure 
intoxicants  after  one  o'clock  in  the  morning,  the  affairs 
could  not  be  made  a  success. 

The  bill,  by  a  vote  of  thirty-eight  to  thirty-three, 
was  finally  amended,  making  the  hours  of  closing  from 
2  to  6  a.  m.289  The  measure  was  passed  by  a  vote  of 
fifty-one  to  six.290 

An  attempt  was  made  to  bring  this  measure  to  a 
referendum  vote.  So  many  names  were  forged  to  the 
referendum  petition,  however,  that  the  petition  was  re- 
jected and  the  law  went  into  operation. 

treatment  accorded  saloon-regulating  measures.  The  record  on 
this  bill  shows: 

May  27 — Passed.  Notice  to  reconsider  on  following  legislative 
day.  Reconsideration  postponed  until  next  legislative  day. 

March  31 — Reconsideration  postponed  until  next  legislative  day. 

April  2 — Reconsideration  postponed  until  next  legislative  day. 

April  3 — Reconsideration  postponed  until  next  legislative  day. 

April  4 — Made  special  order  for  Monday,   April  7. 

April  7 — Action  postponed  until  April  8,  at  12  o'clock  m. 

April   8 — Action   postponed   until  April   9. 

April   9 — Passed,    title   approved,    and   to  Assembly. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  every  day  that  action  on  the 
bill  could  be  delayed  increased  the  probability  of  its  final  defeat. 

289  The  vote  by  which  the  bill  was  amended  in   the  Assembly 
will  be  found  in  Table  IV  of  the  Appendix. 

290  The   vote    by    which    the    One    [amended    to    Two    o'Clock] 
o'clock  Closing  bill  passed  the  Assembly  was   as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bagby,  Beck,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Gary,  Clark,  Wm. 
C.,  Cram,  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald, 
Gates,  Gelder,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  John- 
stone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Klllingsworth,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Morgen- 
stern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott, 
Shannon,  Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tul- 
lock,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 51. 

Against  the  bill — Collins,  Ferguson,  Ford,  Gabbert,  McDonald, 
and  Nolan — 6. 


.  The  Moral  Issues  295 

Another  anti-saloon  measure,  introduced  by  Wyllie,291 
was  intended  to  put  a  four-mile  dry  zone  around  mili- 
tary posts.  By  amendment  the  zone  was  reduced  from 
four  to  two  miles. 

Army  officers  were  strongly  in  favor  of  the  enact- 
ment of  such  legislation.  But  the  liquor  interests  op- 
posed its  passage.  The  bill  did  not  come  to  vote. 

But  the  chief  fight  of  the  session  between  the  liquor 
and  anti-liquor  forces,  came  over  the  so-called  University 
"Dry  Zone"  bills. 

The  anti-liquor  element  endeavored  to  have  the  "Dry 
Zone"  law  at  present  enjoyed  by  the  State  University 
and  Stanford  extended  to  all  universities  within  the 
State.  The  opposition  labored,  not  only  to  prevent  such 
legislation,  but  to  break  down  the  dry  zones  of  the  two 
universities  which  already  enjoy  them.  The  several 
measures  touching  upon  this  issue  will  be  considered 
in  the  next  chapter. 

291  Assembly   Bill   1639. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
THE  UNIVERSITY  "DRY  ZONE"  BILLS. 

From  the  beginning  of  University  development  in 
California,  the  policy  of  the  State  has  been  to  keep 
saloons  from  the  vicinity  of  such  institutions.  Thus,  for 
more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  it  has  been  unlawful 
to  sell  or  give  away  intoxicants  within  a  mile  of  the 
University  of  California.292 

California's  second  great  university,  Stanford,  opened 
its  doors  in  1891.  The  University  "Dry  Zone"  law 
which  gave  protection  to  the  State  University,  did  not 
apply  to  Stanford.  The  saloon  interests  were  quick  to 
seize  the  opportunity.  They  opened  saloons  at  May- 
field,  on  the  edge  of  the  Stanford  campus.  For  years 
these  Mayfield  places  were  Stanford's  bane  and  disgrace. 
Finally,  after  years  of  effort,  the  reputable  people  of 


292  The  beginning  of  "dry  zone"  legislation  was  a  statute 
passed  In  1855,  prohibiting  the  sale  of  liquor  within  two  miles  of 
the  State  Prison.  In  1872  this  was  included  In  the  Penal  Code. 
In  the  session  of  1875  and  1876  provisions  were  added  to  this 
section  of  the  Code  prohibiting  the  sale  of  liquor  within  one 
mile  of  the  Insane  Asylum  at  Napa,  within  one  mile  of  the 
grounds  belonging  and  adjacent  to  the  University  of  California  in 
Alameda  County,  or  within  the  State  Capitol,  or  within  the  limits 
of  the  grounds  adjacent  or  belonging  thereto.  In  1905  this  sec- 
tion was  amended  by  putting  the  same  "dry"  zone  around 
"reformatories"  as  was  then  around  State  prisons,  and  also  by 
putting  a  "dry"  zone  of  a  mile  and  a  half  around  any  home, 
retreat  or  asylum  for  disabled  volunteer  soldiers  or  sailors.  At 
the  same  time  the  "dry"  zone  around  the  asylum  at  Napa  was 
abolished.  In  1907  the  section  was  amended,  reducing  the  "dry" 
zone  around  reformatories  from  two  miles  to  nineteen  hundred 
feet,  and  around  State  prisons  to  one-half  mile. 

The  attack  upon  the  University  "dry  zone"  came  at  the  1913 
session. 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      297 

Mayfield  succeeded  in  electing  town  authorities  who 
closed  the  places. 

The  saloon-keepers  then  moved  to  the  other  side  of 
the  campus,  into  Menlo,  San  Mateo  county.  The  San 
Mateo  county  authorities  refused  to  apply  Mayfield's 
policy  and  close  the  groggeries.  In  Menlo  these  saloons 
continued  as  a  menace  to  the  University. 

Matters  came  to  a  climax  when  a  Stanford  student, 
returning  intoxicated  from  the  Menlo  dens  to  his  room 
in  Palo  Alto,  got  into  the  house  next  to  that  in  which 
he  had  his  room,  was  .mistaken  for  a  burglar,  and  was 
shot  to  death. 

It  developed  at  the  inquest  that  the  youth  had  not 
been  addicted  to  the  drink  habit,  and  so  far  as  could  be 
learned,  his  fatal  trip  to  the  Menlo  groggeries  had  been 
his  first.  There  were  other  painful  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  affair.  It  is  said  that  the  dead  lad's 
mother  was  working  to  keep  her  son  in  the  University. 

On  the  theory  that  the  State  owes  it  to  youths 
away  from  home  attending  school — and  to  the  parents 
of  such  youths — to  guard  them  against  the  evils  of  the 
grog  shop,  the  1909  Legislature,  in  the  face  of  machine 
opposition,293  extended  the  provisions  of  the  University 
Dry  Zone  law  to  Stanford.  But  the  mile-limit  would 
not  have  taken  in  the  Menlo  groggeries.  The  limit 
for  Stanford  was  accordingly  made  a  mile-and-a-half. 

There  are  now,  in  addition  to  Stanford,  four  uni- 
versities in  California — the  University  of  Southern  Cali- 
fornia, the  University  of  Santa  Clara,  the  University  at 


293  See   Story  of   the   California   Legislature   of  1909,    page   224, 
and  page  V  of  the  Appendix. 


298      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

Redlands,  and  St.  Ignatius  University  at  San  Francisco. 

To  meet  the  new  situation,  to  extend  the  State's 
policy  to  all  universities,  Butler  in  the  Senate  and 
Ellis  284  in  the  Assembly  introduced  a  measure  to  make 
the  University  Dry-Zone  law  general,  that  all  the  uni- 
versities in  California  might  have  the  benefit  of  its  pro- 
visions. The  bill  as  originally  introduced,  placed  a 
mile-and-a-half  dry  zone  around  every  university  in 
the  State. 

After  the  measure  had  been  introduced,  a  demand, 
which  was  given  expression  throughout  the  State,  was 
made  that  State  normal  schools  be  included  in  its  pro- 
visions. The  argument  was  made,  that  normal  school 
students,  as  in  the  case  of  university  students,  are  with- 
out the  influence  of  the  home  circle;  that  while  the 
majority  of  normal  school  students  are  young  women, 
and  are  not,  therefore,  brought  into  immediate  contact 
with  the  saloon,  nevertheless  the  low  moral  tone  which 
saloons  give  a  community  does  not  make  for  the  safety 
nor  well-being  of  normal  students.296 

294  Senate   Bill   672   and  Assembly  Bill   615.     The   measure  pro- 
hibited the  sale  or  gift  of  alcoholic  liquors  upon  or  within  a  mile 
and  a  half  of  the  university  grounds  or  campus,   upon  which  are 
located  the  principal  administrative  offices  of  any  university. 

295  The  following  Is  one  of  the  resolutions  which  were  sent  to 
members   of   the    Legislature   urging    that   Normal    Schools   be    in- 
eluded   in  the  terms  of  the   Butler-Ellis  bill: 

"Whereas,  A  State  Normal  School  being  located  in  our  city, 
we  have  been  led  to  observe  that  a  large  number  of  boys  and 
girls  leave  their  homes  in  other  towns  and  come  here  for  the 
purpose  of  acquiring  an  education;  and 

"Whereas,  These  young  people  are,  for  the  most  part,  at  the 
formative  period  of  their  lives;  and 

"Whereas,  They  are  lacking  the  safeguard  and  protection  of 
home  influence  and  more  susceptible  to  the  temptations  of  life; 
therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  we,  the  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union, 
of  Chico,  do  endorse  and  urge  an  amendment  which  will  include 
Normal  Schools  in  the  bill  already  framed  which  prohibits  sa- 
loons within  a  mile  and  one-half  of  State  universities.  Signed 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      299 

But  the  proponents  of  the  measure  were  given  little 
opportunity  to  consider  plans  for  extending  its  pro- 
visions. The  bill  itself  was  attacked  vigorously.  There 
were  two  principal  sources  of  opposition. 

(1)  From  investors  in  the  Hotel  Claremont  prop- 
erty near  the  State  University  campus. 

(2)  From  approximately  a  dozen  saloons  situated 
within  300  feet  of  the  University  of  Santa  Clara. 

And  between  the  two,  they  were  able  to  bring  an 
army  of  opposition  against  such  legislation,  the  oppo- 
nents ranging  from  capitalist  investors  in  hotel  prop- 
erties, and  chambers  of  commerce,  to  labor  unions  and 
certain  Progressive  Republican  leaders. 

The  interest  of  the  Claremont  hotel  people  was,  that 
the  Claremont  is  within  the  mile-dry-zone  about  the 
State  University.  They  were  endeavoring  by  indirec- 
tion to  have  the  Claremont  exempted  from  the  provis- 
ions of  the  dry-zone  law.  The  Butler-Ellis  bill  brought 
the  Claremont  a  half-mile  further  within  the  dry  zone. 

The  Santa  Clara  saloons  opposed  the  Butler-Ellis  bill 
for  the  reason  that  its  passage  meant  their  closing. 
The  influence  of  the  liquor  interests  with  leaders  of  the 
Santa  Clara  County  labor  unions  is  such  that  the  Build- 
ing Trades  Council  and  the  Central  Labor  Council  of 


by  the  Committee — Margaret  M.  March,  president;   Ella  S.  Hatch, 
Eva  S.   Kennedy." 

The  Chico  Civic  League  delegated  Mrs.  Henry  Compton  to  go 
to  Sacramento  in  the  interest  of  the  Normal  School  amendment. 
Mrs.  Compton's  arguments  in  favor  of  the  amendment  have  not 
been  met.  The  result  of  her  work  was  shown  when  the  drawing 
of  a  measure  to  present  the  issues  to  the  electors  under  the 
initiative  was  taken  up.  The  sentiment  was  general  that  normal 
schools  should  be  included  with  universities  in  its  provisions. 
Such,  too,  was  the  sentiment  of  a  large  number  of  members  of 
the  Legislature.  See  footnote  309. 


300      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

that  county  entered  strong  protest  against  the  passage 
of  the  measure. 

The  protest 296  was  signed  by  W.  G.  Mathewson,  as 
secretary,  and  F.  J.  Hepp,  as  recording  secretary,  of  the 
two  organizations  respectively. 

The  Claremont  Hotel  people  did  more  than  oppose 
the  Butler-Ellis  bill.  They  brought  about  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  second  measure,  known  as  the  Ferguson  bill,297 


296  The  protest  was  as  follows: 

"San  Jose,  California,  March  1,  1913. — Hon.  Herbert  Jones, 
San  Jose  Cal.  Dear  Sir:  The  undersigned  labor  organizations 
of  Santa  Clara  County  respectfully  protest  against  the  passage 
of  Senate  Bill  No.  672,  introduced  by  Senator  Edwin  M.  Butler 
of  Los  Angeles,  prohibiting  saloons  within  a  mile  and  one-half 
of  certain  schools. 

"We  base  our  protest  first,  upon  the  fact  that  prohibition 
does  not  prohibit  as  is  conclusively  proved  by  statistics  from  the 
Internal  Revenue  Department  of  the  Federal  Government  showing 
a  large  increase  in  the  per  capita  consumption  of  distilled  and 
malt  liquors  in  the  period  corresponding  with  the  prohibition 
wave.  The  last  report  from  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Reve- 
nue shows  an  enormous  increase  in  the  per  capita  consumption 
from  July  1st  to  February  1st  last,  and  the  increased  revenue 
from  this  source  shows  more  than  $12,000,000. 

"The  second  ground  for  our  protest  is  the  fact  that  all  of 
Santa  Clara  County  recently  voted  on  this  issue  as  follows: 
Supervisorial  Districts  1,  2,  3  and  4  voted  June  7,  1912.  Three 
of  the  four  districts  voted  on  April  26th  and  voted  dry.  The 
city  of  Santa  Clara,  which  the  bill  above  referred  to  would 
largely  affect,  voted  under  the  Wyllie  Local  Option  Law  June 
20th  and  voted  wet  by  160  majority.  The  city  of  San  Jose  also 
voted  on  May  20th,  1912,  under  the  Wyllie  Local  Option  Law  and 
voted  wet  by  a  large  majority.  Therefore,  every  unit  in  the 
county  and  the  incorporated  towns  named  have  passed  upon  this 
question  by  popular  vote. 

"The  third  ground  for  this  protest  is  based  upon  the  fact  that 
the  bill  above  referred  to  if  enacted  into  law  would  deprive 
many  workingmen  of  employment  and  force  them  and  those 
dependent  upon  them  into  idleness  and  consequent  suffering. 

"In  the  name  of  those  affected,  therefore,  we  protest  against 
the  passage  of  this  bill,  and  trust  you  will  see  your  way  toward 
voting  against  it. 

"Building  Trades  Council  of  Santa  Clara  County,  by  W.  G. 
Mathewson,  Secretary. 

"Central  Labor  Council  of  Santa  Clara  County,  by  F.  J.  Hepp, 
Rec.  Secretary." 

297  Assembly    Bill    1620,    introduced    by    Ferguson,    of    Alameda 
County.      So   cleverly   was    this    measure    drawn,    that    it   deceived 
even   the  publications  devoted  to  the  liquor  trade.     For  example, 
the    Wholesalers'    and   Retailers'    Review    in    its    issue    for   March, 
1913,   describes   the   Ferguson   bill   as   "prohibiting  the   sale  of   In- 
toxicants   within    three   miles    of   the    University    Farm    at    Davis, 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      301 

under  the  provisions  of  which  the  Claremont  was  ex- 
cluded from  the  dry  zone. 

On  its  face,  the  bill  extended  the  State  University 
"dry  zone"  from  one  mile  to  one  mile  and  a  quarter. 
It  prohibited  the  sale  or  gift  of  intoxicants  "in  that 
portion  of  Oakland  township  northwest  of  the  old  Fish 
ranch  road  or  in  the  city  of  Berkeley  within  one  and 
one-quarter  miles  of  the  grounds  belonging  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  California  at  Berkeley."  As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  bill  extended  the  "dry  zone"  on  the  Berkeley  side, 
which  is  already  "dry"  territory,  and  shortened  it  on  the 
Oakland  side  sufficiently  to  get  the  Claremont  outside 
the  "dry  zone."  The  old  Fish  ranch  road  runs  between 
the  University  and  the  Claremont. 

And  this  bill,  the  Alameda  county  politicians,  the 
Oakland  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  other  powerful 
interests,  attempted  to  force  through  the  Legislature. 

At  the  request  of  the  Oakland  Chamber  of  Commerce 

and  increasing  the  present  'dry  zone'  around  the  University  of 
California  from  one  to  one  and  one-fourth  miles." 

But  the  members  of  the  Alameda  delegation  in  the  Legis- 
lature understood  the  intent  of  the  measure  perfectly.  Senator 
Breed  in  an  interview  published  in  the  Sacramento  Bee,  March 
31,  1913,  said  of  it: 

"I  was  asked  by  Attorney  Edward  Bngs,  who  represents  the 
Claremont  Hotel,  to  introduce  this  measure.  While  I  think  the 
Claremont  should  be  excluded  from  the  strict  provisions  of  the 
'dry  zone'  law,  I  refused  to  introduce  this  measure.  Under  its 
provisions  roadhouses  could  be  opened  in  Claremont  Canyon. 
The  bill  was  later  introduced  in  the  Assembly.  Unless  it  be 
amended,  I  am  sure  it  cannot  pass  at  this  session." 

The  majority  of  the  Alameda  delegation  in  the  Assembly 
opposed  the  bill's  passage.  Clark  of  Oakland  and  Young  of 
Berkeley  were  particularly  effective  in  their  opposition.  The 
character  of  Young's  district  is  such  that  the  liquor  interests 
will  be  unable  to  "punish"  him  for  his  part  in  opposing  the  bill. 
It  is  current  gossip,  however,  that  Clark,  should  he  be  a  candi- 
date for  re-election,  will  be  "punished"  because  of  his  opposition 
to  this  particular  measure.  The  electors  of  Mr.  Clark's  district, 
who  may  not  approve  the  "punishing"  of  a  legislator  for  doing 
what  the  general  public  regards  as  right,  will  probably  have  a 
word  to  say  about  such  "punishment." 


302      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

a  joint  meeting  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  Public 
Morals  Committee  was  held  on  the  night  of  Tuesday, 
April  1,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  Ferguson 
and  the  Butler-Ellis  bills.298 

A  carload  of  Oakland  capitalists  and  business  men 
attended  the  meeting.  Their  attitude  was  well  repre- 
sented by  Mayor  Mott  of  Oakland,  who  addressed  the 
committees  in  behalf  of  the  measure. 

"I  came  to  Sacramento,"  said  Mayor  Mott,  "in  com- 
pany with  forty  business  men  to  ask  relief  in  behalf  of 
the  Claremont  Hotel.  The  Claremont  was  begun  sev- 
eral years  ago.  It  represents  an  investment  of  $1,000,- 
000,  which  will  be  increased  to  $1,500,000  by  the  time 
the  building  is  completed  and  furnished.  True,  the 
building  is  within  the  one-mile  University  'dry  zone.' 
But  the  establishment  cannot  be  successfully  conducted 
unless  it  be  permitted  to  serve  liquors  to  guests.  Mr. 
Havens,  who  is  behind  the  enterprise,  states  that  he 
knows  of  no  successful  transit  hotel  where  liquors  are 
not  sold." 

The  opposition  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  ex- 
pressed by  Leon  Martin  of  Berkeley  in  summing  up  his 
argument  against  the  measure. 

298  On  March  27  Senator  Tyrrell  of  Alameda  County  received 
the  following  telegram: 

"Oakland,  Cal.,  March  27,  1913.  Hon.  Edward  J.  Tyrrell, 
Senate  Chamber,  Sacramento. — Plans  were  being  completed  for 
large  delegation  of  citizens  to  leave  on  special  train  this  after- 
noon to  attend  meeting  of  Senate  Public  Morals  Committee  and 
seek  relief  for  Claremont  Hotel  from  Legislature  when  informed 
that  meeting  had  been  postponed.  Can  you  not  arrange  to  have 
joint  meeting  of  Public  Morals  Committees  to  consider  Butler 
bill  and  Ferguson  bill  on  next  Tuesday  or  "Wednesday  evening; 
also  for  meeting  of  Alameda  County  delegation  on  same  night? 
Wednesday  would  be  preferable.  Send  answer  to  A.  A.  Denison, 
Secretary  Chamber  of  Commerce. — Harmon  Bell,  president  Com- 
mercial Club;  W.  E.  Gibson,  president  Chamber  Commerce;  A. 
G.  Taft,  president  Merchants'  Exchange." 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      303 

"The  Ferguson  bill,"  Martin  insisted  in  closing,  "is 
not  designed  to  benefit  the  university,  it  is  not  designed 
to  benefit  Berkeley;  it  is  not  designed  to  benefit  Oak- 
land. It  is  intended  to  add  to  the  dividends  of  a  small 
group  of  capitalists.  It  was  conceived  in  vicious  intent, 
and  in  carrying  out  this  vicious  intent  you  will  benefit 
only  a  small  body  of  men."  298 

The  Assembly  Public  Morals  Committee  suggested 
amendments  to  the  Ferguson  bill,  and  reported  it  back 
to  the  Assembly  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  not 
pass.800 

It  was  thought  that  such  a  bill  could  not  possibly 
pass  the  Assembly,  or  even  be  given  serious  considera- 
tion there.  But  the  proponents  of  the  measure  inaugur- 
ated a  strong  campaign  in  its  behalf.  When  the  measure 
came  to  vote  in  the  Assembly  on  April  28,  no  less  than 
thirty-one  votes  were  cast  for  it.301 


299  Protests    against    the    passage    of    the    Ferguson    bill    came 
from   every  part   of   California.      The    following   telegram,    received 
by   Speaker  Young  on   April   1   from  Arthur  Arlett,   gives  fair   ex- 
pression  of   this   opposition: 

"Understand  hearing  of  Claremont  Hotel  matter  is  up  for 
consideration  to-night.  Regret  exceedingly  my  inability  to  appear 
in  person  to  present  protest  against  any  reduction  of  present 
mile  limit  area.  Hotel  owners  knew  that  property  was  within 
'dry  zone'  and  should  have  counted  the  cost  before  investing. 
Proposed  legislation  is  aimed  to  defeat  the  absolute  intent  of 
present  law,  and  special  legislation  of  this  character  is  contrary 
to  the  whole  tendency  of  progressive  politics.  I  trust  you  will 
vigorously  oppose  the  measure." 

300  These   proposed    amendments    did    away   with    the    one-and- 
one-quarter-miles   trick,    and   made   the    "dry  zone"    one   mile,    but 
with    measurements    to     be     made     from    the    University    library 
building,   instead  of  the  edge  of  the  campus.     This  let  the  Clare- 
mont Hotel   out   of   the    "dry   zone."      The   effect   was    exactly   the 
same  as  that  aimed  for  in  the  original  Ferguson  bill. 

301  The  vote  by  which   the   Ferguson   bill   was   defeated    in    the 
Assembly  on   April  28  was: 

For  the  Ferguson  bill — Beck,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Bush,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Collins,  Dower,  Fitzgerald,  Ford,  Gates,  Hayes,  Johnston, 
T.  D. ;  Killingsworth,  Libby,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Nolan,  Ryan, 


304      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

The  proponents  of  the  measure  warded  off  final  de- 
feat by  holding  the  bill  up  on  a  motion  for  reconsidera- 
tion. The  bill  was,  under  reconsideration,  put  to  vote 
for  the  second  time.  Its  supporters  had,  during  the 
period  between  the  two  votes,  brought  great  pressure  to 
bear  to  secure  its  passage.  The  trading  of  votes  on  be- 
half of  the  bill  was  openly  charged.302  When  the  roll 
was  for  the  second  time  called  on  its  passage,  forty-one 
Assemblymen,  the  majority  necessary  for  passage,  voted 
for  it. 

Of  the  forty-one  was  Assemblyman  Johnstone.  When 
Johnstone  saw  that  his  vote  was  to  mean  the  bill's 
passage,  before  the  result  could  be  announced,  he 
changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no,  leaving  only  forty 
Assemblymen  voting  for  it.  This  was  one  less  than 


Schmltt,   Scott,   Shannon,    Shearer,   Simpson,   Slater,   Smith,   Stuck- 
enbruck,    Sutherland,    Wall,    Walsh,    and   White — 31 

Against  the  Ferguson  bill — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Cary,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Cram, 
Ellis,  Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gelder,  Guiber- 
son,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Inman,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.; 
Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Mouser,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Tul- 
lock,  Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  and  Young — 34. 

302  The  fight  for  the  passage  of  the  Conservation  bill  (Assem- 
bly Bill  642),  became  involved  with  the  contest  over  the  Ferguson 
bill. 

"This  (Conservation)  bill,"  said  the  special  correspondent  of 
the  Fresno  Republican,  in  his  paper  for  May  3,  "encountered 
more  opposition  from  the  first  than  any  other  of  the  large 
measures  before  this  session  of  the  Legislature.  By  clever  tactics 
it  was  amended  every  time  it  came  up  and  its  course  delayed 
until  it  got  badly  entangled  with  petty  local  fights.  It  became 
involved  with  the  fight  to  exclude  the  Claremont  Hotel  from  the 
university  mile  dry  zone,  with  the  fight  to  place  a  dry  zone 
around  Santa  Clara  University  and  with  other  fights.  Opponents 
traded  right  and  left  to  secure  votes  against  this  measure.  Even 
Johnstone,  sponsor  for  the  bill,  yielded  to  this  pressure,  voting 
with  the  Alameda  delegation  to  let  the  Claremont  maintain  a  bar. 
Then  the  Los  Angeles  men  declared  war  on  his  water  measure 
and  he  changed  his  vote,  defeating  the  Claremont  exemption. 
The  result  was  that  he  antagonized  the  Alameda  crowd  and  only 
half-heartedly  held  the  Los  Angelenos." 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      305 

the  number   required   for   the  bill's   passage.      By  this 
narrow  margin  was  the  Ferguson  bill  defeated.303 

The  Butler  "Dry  Zone"  bill  was  returned  to  the 
Senate  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Morals  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed.  It  was  not,  how- 
ever, immediately  acted  upon.  Finally,  supporters  of 
the  measure  were  approached  with  suggestion  that  if 
certain  amendments  were  accepted  the  opposition  against 
the  measure  would  cease.  The  amendments  proposed 
provided  for  a  mile  and  a  half  dry  zone  for  universi- 
ties having  an  enrollment  of  more  than  1,000  students, 
more  than  500  of  whom  resided  on  the  campus.  Stan- 
ford University  is  the  only  university  in  the  State  which 
answers  this  description.  For  all  other  universities  a 
half-mile  dry  zone  was  provided.  This  would  have 
closed  all  the  saloons  at  Santa  Clara ;  it  would  have 
provided  a  half-mile  dry  zone  for  every  university  in 
California,  including  St.  Ignatius  at  San  Francisco.  But 
it  would  have  reduced  the  "dry  zone"  at  the  State  Uni- 
versity from  one  mile  to  a  half  mile.  The  Hotel  Clare- 


303  The  vote  by  which  the  Ferguson  bill  was  finally  defeated 
was: 

For  the  Ferguson  bill — Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Bush, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Collins,  Dower,  Emmons,  Ferguson,  Fitzgerald, 
Ford,  Gates,  Green,  Griffin,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Kil- 
lingsworth,  Kuck,  Libby,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Murray,  Nolan, 
Palmer,  Richardson,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Shearer, 
Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Walsh,  and  White 
—40. 

Against  the  Ferguson  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Clarke, 
Geo.  A.;  Cram,  Ellis,  Farwell,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gelder,  Guiberson, 
Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Kings- 
ley,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Polsley, 
Roberts,  Strine,  Tulloch,  Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and 
Young — 36. 


306      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

mont  would  then  have  been  outside  the  new  dry-zone 
limits.304 

The  proponents  of  the  Butler  bill  rejected  the  pro- 
posed compromise.  They  were  not  laboring  to  close  the 
saloons  in  any  particular  community.  They  were  en- 
deavoring to  have  the  State's  University  "dry-zone" 
policy  applied  to  all  the  universities  in  the  State. 

Before  the  bill  came  to  vote  in  the  Senate,  it  was 
amended,  but,  with  but  one  exception,  not  materially 
changed.  The  "dry  zones"  at  Stanford  and  the  State 
University  were  left  unchanged.  A  mile  dry  zone  was 
put  around  every  other  university  of  the  State,  but  one. 
Because  of  the  attitude  of  San  Francisco  legislators, 
the  exception  was  made  in  the  case  of  St.  Ignatius  Uni- 
versity in  San  Francisco.805  As  amended,  the  bill  passed 

304  The  proposed  compromise  which  the  proponents  of  the 
Butler  bill  rejected,  read  as  follows: 

"Every  person  who,  upon  or  within  one  and  one-half  miles  of 
the  university  grounds  or  campus,  upon  which  are  located  the 
principal  administrative  offices  of  any  university  having  an  enroll- 
ment of  more  than  one  thousand  students,  more  than  five  hundred 
of  whom  reside  or  lodge  upon  such  university  ground  or  campus 
(or  within  half  a  mile  of  any  other  university  now  in  existence  in 
this  State),  sells,  gives  away,  or  exposes  for  sale,  any  vinous  or 
alcoholic  liquors,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  Provided,  however, 
that  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  nor  prohibit  the 
sale  of  any  of  said  liquors  by  any  regularly  licensed  pharmacist 
who  shall  maintain  a  fixed  place  of  business  in  said  territory, 
upon  the  written  prescription  of  a  physician  regularly  licensed  to 
practice  medicine  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  California,  when 
such  prescription  is  dated  by  the  physician  issuing  it,  contains  the 
name  of  the  person  for  whom  the  prescription  is  written,  and  is 
filled  for  such  person  only  and  within  forty-eight  hours  of  its  date. 
Provided  further,  that  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to 
nor  prohibit  the  sale  of  any  of  said  liquors  for  chemical  or  me- 
chanical purposes,  or  the  sale  or  gift  of  any  of  said  liquors  for 
use  beyond  said  limits." 

805  The  people  of  the  town  of  Santa  Clara  where  Santa  Clara 
University  is  situated,  were  particularly  desirous  that  this  bill  be 
passed.  They  sent  Senator  Jones,  in  whose  district  Santa  Clara 
University  is  located,  many  petitions,  letters  and  telegrams  urging 
that  he  give  the  bill  his  support.  Senator  Jones  did  not  give 
these  communications  publicity. 

During  the  debate  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  Senator 
Finn,  of  San  Francisco,  demanded  if  any  one  had  heard  of  anyone 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      307 

the  Senate  with  only  Bryant,  Finn  and  Regan — all  of 
San  Francisco — voting  against  it.306 

The  Assembly  Public  Morals  Committee,  after  sev- 
eral hearings  in  which  every  provision  of  the  measure 
was  thoroughly  discussed,  recommended  that  the  bill  be 
passed  in  the  same  form  that  it  had  passed  the  Senate. 
Proponents  of  the  Ferguson  bill,  however,  had  not  given 
up  hope  that  the  Butler-Ellis  bill  would  be  amended  to 
release  Claremont  Hotel  from  the  State  University 
"dry  zone."  The  proposal  was  made  to  the  Butler-Ellis 
supporters  that  they  permit  the  amendment  of  the 
measure,  so  that  the  Claremont  would  be  left  without 
the  restrictions  of  the  State  University  zone.  The  pass- 
age of  the  measure  would  then  have  been  assured.  But 
the  proponents  of  the  bill  not  only  stated  that  they 
would  resist  such  amendments,  but  that  if  the  bill  were 
amended  as  proposed,  and  passed  they  would  place 
the  facts  before  Governor  Johnson,  and  request  him  to 
veto  the  measure.  This  stand  resulted  in  the  retirement 
of  the  Claremont  people.  The  Butler  bill  seemed  then 
in  a  fair  way  of  passage. 

However,  when  the  bill,  late  at  night  after  several 
of  those  who  were  counted  upon  to  vote  for  it,  had  left 
the  chamber,  came  up  for  passage,  Inman  of  Sacra- 
mento offered  an  amendment  to  exclude  cities  of  the 
sixth  class  from  its  provisions.  This  amendment  prac- 
tically abolished  the  Stanford  "dry  zone"  by  permitting 


in  Santa  Clara  who  wanted  the  bill  passed.  All  eyes  were  turned 
on  Senator  Jones.  But  Senator  Jones  sat  mute.  The  question 
went  unanswered. 

so*  For   the   Senate  vote  on   the   University   Dry  Zone   bill   see 
Table  III  of  the  Appendix. 


308      The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills 

saloons  at  Mayfield,  and — should  Menlo  be  organized  as 
a  city  of  the  sixth  class — at  Menlo.  It  also  excluded 
the  University  of  Santa  Clara  from  the  bill's  provisions. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  opposed  the  Inman 
amendment  vigorously.  They  asked  for  a  call  of  the 
House — almost  always  allowed — that  the  absent  members 
might  be  brought  in.  But  this  privilege,  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-eight  to  thirty-eight,  was  denied  them.307  The 
proposed  amendment,  under  which  Stanford  and  Santa 
Clara  Universities  were  excluded  from  dry-zone  privi- 
leges, was  finally  authorized  by  a  vote  of  thirty-nine  to 
thirty-two.808 

When  the  bill  came  up  for  final  passage  many  of  its 
original  supporters  opposed  its  passage  on  the  ground 
that  it  would,  as  amended,  allow  the  reopening  of  the 

SOT  The  vote  by  which  the  bringing  in  of  absent  members  was 
denied  was  as  follows: 

To  bring  In  the  absent  members — Ambrose,  Bagby,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Clark,  Wm.  C.j  Ellis,  Emmons,  Fin- 
negan,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Jud- 
son,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Smith, 
Strine,  Sutherland,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 28. 

Against  bringing  in  the  absent  members — Beck,  Bowman,  Brad- 
ford, Bush,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Clarke,  Geo.  A. ;  Collins,  Dower, 
Farwell,  Ferguson,  Fitzgerald,  Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Hayes,  In- 
man, Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Killingsworth,  Kuck,  Lib- 
by,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Richardson,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shan- 
non, Shartel,  Simpson,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Wei- 
don,  and  White — 38. 

808  The  vote  by  which  amendment  of  the  Butler  bill  was  au- 
thorized so  that  Stanford  and  Santa  Clara  Universities  would  have 
been  excluded  from  "dry-zone"  privileges  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Bagby,  Beck,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Bush, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Dower,  Emmons,  Farwell, 
Ferguson,  Fitzgerald,  Gelder,  Green.  Griffin,  Hayes,  Inman,  John- 
son, Geo.  H. ;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Killingsworth,  Kuck,  Libby,  Mc- 
Carthy, McDonald,  Nolan,  Richardson,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Shannon, 
Shartel,  Simpson,  Stuckenbruck,  Wall,  Walsh,  Weisel,  Weldon,  and 
White— 39. 

Against  the  Amendment — Ambrose,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Boh- 
nett, Brown,  Cary,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Cram,  Ellis,  Finnegan,  Fish, 
Gabbert,  Gates,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Moor- 
house,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts, 
Scott,  Smith,  Strine,  Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and 
Young — 32. 


The  University  "Dry  Zone"  Bills      309 

groggeries  which  had  so  long  menaced  Stanford  Uni- 
versity. 

"With  the  understanding,"  said  Assemblyman  Gary, 
in  making  explanation  of  his  vote  against  the  bill  in 
the  journal,  "that  the  passage  of  Senate  Bill  No.  672 
[the  University  "Dry  Zone"  bill],  as  amended,  would 
permit  saloons  within  one  and  one-half  miles  of  Stan- 
ford University,  I  changed  my  vote  from  aye  to  no." 

Such  was  the  position  of  many  who  voted  against 
the  bill. 

In  this  way  was  the  University  "dry-zone"  bill  de- 
feated. With  its  defeat  came  suggestions  that  a  Uni- 
versity dry-zone  bill,  under  the  initiative,  be  submitted 
to  a  vote  of  the  people  of  California.809  That  is  at 
present  writing  being  done.  Petitions  are  being  circu- 
lated for  the  initiation  of  such  a  measure,  which  pro- 
vides not  only  for  a  dry  zone  for  universities,  but  for 
State  Normal  Schools  also. 

309  "The  incident,"  said  Assemblyman  Nelson,  Chairman  of  the 
Assembly  Public  Morals  Committee,  "demonstrates  the  necessity 
for  action  to  prevent  these  constantly  recurring  attempts  in  behalf 
of  special  interests  to  break  down  the  State  no- saloon  zone  policy 
for  universities.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  law  being  initiated  to  extend 
this  policy  to  all  universities.  The  ratification  of  such  a  law  by 
The  People  would  place  the  policy  beyond  danger  of  legislative 
tinkering,  for  the  Legislature  cannot  amend  an  initiated  law." 

Senator  Kehoe  coincided  in  Nelson's  views.  "I  would  suggest, 
however,"  said  Kehoe,  "that  State  Normal  Schools  be  included  in 
such  a  measure.  Normal  school  students,  as  in  the  case  of  uni- 
versity students,  are  compelled  to  leave  their  homes  for  training, 
and  are  entitled  to  the  same  protection  as  university  students. 
Parents  of  Normal  students,  too,  are  entitled  to  the  same  protec- 
tion for  their  children  who  are  sent  away  to  school  as  is  accorded 
parents  of  university  students." 

But  the  idea  had  found  expression  even  before  the  Legislature 
of  1913  convened.  In  discussing  the  saloon  problem,  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Monitor,  official  organ  of  the  Archdiocese  of  San  Francisco, 
in  its  issue  of  November  30,  1912,  said: 

"When  we  consider  now  saloons  flock  thick  around  the  vicinity 
of  our  colleges  and  university — we  know  of  one  Catholic  institution 
that  is  harassed  and  annoyed  by  no  less  than  thirteen  grog-shops, 
all  within  300  feet  of  its  doors — then  we  begin  to  realize  how  earn- 
estly some  of  us  grow  to  wish  for  an  opportunity  to  vote  the  sa- 
loon out  of  our  neighborhood." 


CHAPTER    XXIV. 
THE   PRIZEFIGHT   BILLS. 

The  most  popular  act  of  Governor  Gillett's  adminis- 
tration was  his  positive  stand  against  the  Jeffries- John- 
son prizefight.  Governor  Gillett  let  it  be  known  that 
the  law  would  be  enforced  against  those  responsible  for 
that  fight,  even  though  the  State  militia  were  called  out 
to  enforce  it.  There  was  the  usual  protest  that  such 
interference  would  hurt  business  at  San  Francisco — 
drive  money  out  of  the  State.  But  Governor  Gillett  re- 
fused to  yield.  The  aggregation  of  white,  black  and 
mixed  sports  crossed  over  the  line  into  Nevada.  Cali- 
fornia was  spared  the  disgrace  of  the  Jeffries-Johnson 
mill. 

Governor  Gillett's  action  was  generally  commended. 
The  tenderloin  didn't  like  it,  but  the  people  of  Cali- 
fornia did. 

There  was  a  general  suspicion  throughout  the  State, 
however,  that  Governor  Gillett  had  acted  not  so  much 
on  what  the  law  governing  prizefights  was,  but  on  what 
it  should  have  been. 

The  fact  must  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  tenderloin 
interests  had  had  much  to  do  with  the  Legislatures  which 
up  to  1911  had  considered  anti-prizefight  legislation. 

The  corrupting  influence  of  prizefight  promoting, 
however,  was  generally  recognized.  The  public  had 
read  closely  the  story  of  the  corruption  of  the  Schmitz- 


The  Prizefight  Bills  311 

Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  at  San  Francisco,  which  had 
been  begun  by  the  payment  by  prizefight  promoters, 
through  Abe  Ruef,  of  $500  to  each  of  the  Supervisors, 
for  exclusive  privileges  to  conduct  prizefights  at  San 
Francisco.310 

When  the   1911   session  convened,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  drastic  anti-prizefight 


sio  Of  this  corruption  the  official  report  of  the  Causes  of  Mu- 
nicipal Corruption  at  San  Francisco,  which  led  up  to  the  so-called 
Graft  Prosecution,  issued  by  the  San  Francisco  Board  of  Super- 
visors, says: 

"As  might  be  expected  of  a  community  which  gilds  Its  so- 
called  social  evils  with  the  accessibility  and  attractiveness  of  its 
French  restaurants,  San  Francisco  still  licenses  prize  fighting.  This 
is  done  through  the  medium  of  its  limited-round  boxing  permits. 
The  words  'limited'  and  'boxing'  are  a  sham  that  deceives  no  one, 
and  encounters  are  openly  advertised  as  for  the  various  prize- 
fighting championships  either  local  or  for  the  world.  The  'knock- 
out,' inducing  unconsciousness,  is  a  frequent  termination  of  the 
encounter,  while  the  'limit' — often  twenty  rounds,  extending  over 
nearly  two  hours — finds  the  contestants  seriously  beaten  up  and 
the  audience  in  a  frenzy  of  brutal  excitement.  This  gladiatorial 
brutality  is  apparently  the  sole  reason  for  the  continuance  of  the 
fights,  as  there  are  few  persons  who  are  induced  by  the  example 
of  the  prize  ring  to  take  up  the  sport  for  physical  development  or 
athletic  competition. 

"The  first  crime  in  which  the  Ruef-Schmitz  Board  of  Super- 
visors participated  as  a  whole,  was  in  the  creation  of  a  monopoly 
of  these  fight  permits  for  a  body  of  promoters  known  as  the  Prize 
Fight  Trust.  These  men  paid  Ruef  a  large  sum  of  money  for  tjie 
exclusive  right  to  the  permits,  and  Ruef  in  turn  distributed  a  part 
of  the  money  to  the  members  of  the  Board.  The  price  was  high, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  French  restaurants,  for  there  was  a  strong 
feeling  in  the  community  against  the  continuance  of  the  'fight 
game,'  primarily  because  of  its  essential  barbarity,  and  secondar- 
ily because,  being  prohibited  in  most  of  the  other  large  cities  of 
America,  San  Francisco  became  the  rendezvous  of  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  pugilists  and  their  following  of  trainers  and  rough 
sporting  men  of  the  entire  country. 

"We  have  found  no  indications  in  the  prize  ring  graft  which 
connect  it  up  with  the  higher  financiers,  or  the  landlord,  as  in  the 
case  of  gambling  and  the  social  evil,  but  it  appears  that  the  busi- 
ness is  as  firmly  established  and  as  regularly  organized  as  either 
of  the  former.  The  'People  of  the  State  of  California,'  the  plaintiff 
in  all  these  cases,  or  the  'Prosecution,'  as  they  were  nicknamed, 
by  focusing  the  public  attention  on  their  character  through  these 
indictments  and  raids,  were  placing  all  three  of  these  institutions 
in  jeopardy.  The  cry  that  the  prosecution  was  'hurting  business' 
became  the  watchword  of  all  those  who  profit  by  the  tenderloin 
enterprises,  both  high  and  low,  as  well  as  others  in  more  innocent 
employments  who  were  led  to  imagine  they  would  be  better  off  if 
the  city's  vices  were  left  to  run  'wide  open.'  " 


312  The  Prizefight  Bills 

law311  which  would  prevent  such  exhibitions  as  the  Jef- 
fries-Johnson affair.  Bills  to  that  end  were  introduced. 
Immediately  men  not  popularly  regarded  as  opposed  to 
the  exploitation  of  prizefighting,  ajso  introduced  anti- 
prizefight  bills.  They  started  arguments  as  to  which 
was  the  best  bill.  They  were  still  arguing  when  the 
1911  session  adjourned  without  any  anti-prizefight  bill 
having  been  acted  upon. 

An  attempt  was  made  in  1912  to  have  such  a  meas- 
ure put  on  the  ballot  by  petition.  But  the  necessary 
number  of  signers  was  not  obtained  in  time.  The  1913 
session  opened  with  the  situation,  so  far  as  anti-prizefight 
legislation  was  concerned,  precisely  where  it  had  been 
two  years  before. 

Assemblyman  Brown812  of  San  Mateo  in  the  Lower 
House,  and  Senator  Brown313  of  Los  Angeles  in  the 
Upper,  introduced  bills  to  outlaw  prizefighting  and  re- 
store sparring  matches  to  the  realms  of  legitimate 
sport.814 

311  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  171. 

312  Assembly   Bill   880. 

313  Senate  Bill  735. 

314  The  professional  gambler  and  the  professional   exploiter  of 
sports    insist   always    that    Interference    with    their    activities    will 
mean    the    ruin    of   sport.     The   gambler  and    the   exploiter   has    a 
curious  way  of  mistaking  himself  for  a  sportsman.    Thus,  the  chief 
argument   advanced    at   previous   sessions   against   the    passage    of 
anti-racetrack    gambling    legislation    was    that    such    laws    would 
make  horseracing  Impossible.     But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  the 
gambler  had  been  finally  banished  from  the  track,  legitimate  horse- 
racing  became  practical.     The  races  at  the   State   Fair  at  Sacra- 
mento In  1912,  at  which  poolselling  and  bookmaking  were  barred, 
were,   for  example,  a  notable  success.     Of  them,  and  the  changed 
conditions  at  the  track,   the  Sacramento  Bee  said: 

"Especially  notable  was  the  fact  that  respectable  women 
by  thousands  were  seen  at  the  fair  grounds  from  day  to  day, 
a  large  proportion  of  them  viewing  all  the  races  and  display- 
Ing  a  keen  interest  in  other  features  of  the  program;  taking 
their  lunches  at  the  Park,  spending  money  liberally  and  mani- 


The  Prizefight  Bills  313 

The  Assembly  bill  made  prizefighting,  or  the  sending 
or  accepting  of  a  challenge  for  a  prizefight,  or  the  train- 
ing of  a  principal  for  a  prizefight,  or  permitting  the  use 
of  land  or  building  for  a  prizefight,  a  felony.  To  make 
a  bet  on,  or  to  be  present  at  a  prizefight,  was  also  made 
a  felony. 

The  Senate  bill  made  all  those  connected  with,  and 
responsible  for,  a  prizefight  guilty  of  misdemeanor,  pun- 
ishable by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than 

festing  much  enthusiasm  over  the  entertainment  provided  for 
all  visitors. 

"But  no  less  remarkable  was  the  absence  of  pickpockets;  of 
the  prostitutes,   procuresses,   pimps,   and  other  male  parasites; 
touts,   tinhorn  gamblers,   blacklegs,    bunco   men,    swindlers   and 
professional  criminals,  and  blackguards  of  other  descriptions — 
such  as  formerly  infested  State  and  District  Fairs  when  pool- 
selling  and  other  forms  of  gambling  on  races  were  permitted." 
In  the  same  strain,  the  Fresno  Republican,  in  its  issue  of  April 
15,  1913,  says  of  the  opening  of  the  light-harness  racing  season: 

"The  California  light-harness  racing  season  opened  yester- 
day with  a  very  successful  meet.  Numerous  horses  ran,  there 
were  good  stakes,  and  the  meet  evidently  aroused  int'erest 
enough  to  justify  its  existence.  It  was  held,  of  course,  subiect 
to  the  California  law,  which  makes  no  objection  to  horseracing, 
but  does  prevent  the  racing  being  used  as  a  mere  pretext  for 
gambling.  This  law  as  illustrated  by  the  Pleasanton  racing 
yesterday  and  by  many  other  races  all  through  the  State  does 
not  in  the  least  obstruct  horseracing  by  trotting  horses  driven 
to  harness." 

Of  the  1913  Fresno  County  Fair  the  Republican,  in  its  issue  of 
October  5,  says: 

"No  visitor  of  reasonably  long  memory  can  have  attended 
the  Fresno  County  Fair  this  year  without  noticing  once  more 
the  contrast  between  the  decent  success  of  real  merit  in  the 
fairs  of  to-day  as  compared  with  the  indecent  failures  of  for- 
mer times.  Here  was  a  great  fair  of  unprecedented  attend- 
ance, unprecedented  attractions,  and  unprecedented  financial 
success,  at  which  not  a  drink  was  sold,  not  a  pool  was  sold, 
not  a  public  bet  placed,  not  a  gambling  or  swindling  device 
tolerated,  and  at  which  there  was  no  disorder  or  roughness  of 
any  sort. 

"It  is  so  many  years  since  the  fairs  of  California,  from  the 
State  Fair  down  to  the  smallest  County  Fair,  were  simply  or- 
gies of  lawlessness.  All  the  gambling  that  the  widest  open 
towns  tolerated,  plus  a  lot  more  which  was  tolerated 
at  no  other  time,  was  concentrated  on  fair  week. 
Drunkenness  and  disorder  were  the  rule.  The  only  at- 
tractions seriously  considered  were  the  horseraces,  and  the 
chief  interest  in  them  was  in  the  gambling  to  which  they  were 
an  incident.  Every  attempt  to  improve  its  moral  condition  was 
met  with  the  cry  that  any  such  improvement  would  kill  the 


314  The  Prizefight  Bills 

$1,000  AND  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  not 
less  than  thirty  days  nor  exceeding  one  year. 

The  bill  specifically  protected  legitimate  sparring 
matches  and  boxing  exhibitions,  provided  that  no  fee 
of  any  sort  should  be  charged  for  attendance  at  them, 
that  the  number  of  rounds  should  not  be  more  than 
four  of  three  minutes'  duration  .  each ;  that  the  gloves 
should  not  weigh  less  than  eight  ounces ;  that  the  prin- 
cipals should  receive  no  compensation  or  reward  other 

fairs  and  make  a  financial  failure,  as  well  as  deprive  the 
towns  of  the  large  amount  of  money  which  these  wide  open 
features  attracted.  The  quite  evident  fact  that  the  fairs  were 
then  losing  propositions  and  that  the  merchants  of  the  towns 
where  they  were  held  were  not  making  money  from  them  did 
not  affect  the  argument." 

The  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  in  its  issue  of  October  11,  1913, 
comments  on  the  advantage  to  legitimate  racing  of  the  banish- 
ment of  the  gambler  from  the  track.  The  Bulletin  says: 

"That  betting  in  the  form  of  bookmaking  is  the  curse  of 
racing  is  never  illustrated  better  than  in  the  history  of  the 
sulky  game  in  California.  In  the  old  days  when  the  bookmaker 
played  a  conspicuous  role  a  trotting  or  pacing  race  that  was  won 
in  straight  heats  was  a  rarity.  It  had  to  be  some  big  stake 
where  the  prize  was  alluring  for  the  horses  to  'try'  in  every 
heat.  Otherwise  the  drivers  were  scoring  or  laying  up  heats 
after  heats  until  the  sun  went  down.  Programs  were  often 
completed  the  next  day  on  account  of  the  dilly-dallying  tactics 
of  the  drivers.  The  truth  of  the  matter  was  that  the  drivers 
were  not  driving  for  the  purses,  they  were  driving  for  the 
bookmakers.  There  was  more  money  in  the  boxes  than  in  the 
secretary's  office  for  the  horsemen.  Since  California  passed  its 
anti-bookmaking  laws  what  has  been  the  result?  There  is  no 
laying- up  of  heats.  The  drivers  are  out  to  make  every  post  a 
winning  post  and  the  outcome  is  that  the  large  majority  of 
races  are  decided  in  straight  heats.  The  public  is  not  robbed 
by  a  bunch  of  unscrupulous  bookmakers,  who  were  nothing 
more  than  leeches  upon  society.  Racing  is  now  clean  and  free 
from  taint  and  the  public  is  protected,  not  skinned,  as  they 
were  in  the  old  days.  And  there  seems  to  be  just  as  much  in- 
terest in  the  sport.  Anyway,  the  fairs  are  making  more  money 
without  bookmaking  than  they  were  with  it." 

In  the  same  way  as  the  racetrack  gamblers  used  to  do,  the  ex- 
ploiters of  prizefighting  insist  that  interference  with  them  means 
there  can  be  no  more  boxing  or  sparring  matches.  Nothing  is  fur- 
ther from  the  truth. 

It  may  be  added,  too,  that  the  management  of  the  Panama- 
Pacific  Exposition  gives  evidence  of  its  belief  that  San  Francisco 
must  be  "wide  open"  during  the  Exposition  period  if  the  Exposi- 
tion is  to  be  a  success.  Such  a  policy,  if  adhered  to,  will  unques- 
tionably prove  as  disastrous  to  the  Exposition  and  the  State  as  did 
bookmaking  to  legitimate  horseracing  and  as  does  prizefight  pro- 
moting to  sparring  contests. 


The  Prizefight  Bills  315 

than  a  trophy  or  medal,  not  to  exceed  in  value  the  sum 
of  thirty-five  dollars. 

These  measures  brought  to  Sacramento  a  lobby  of 
prizefight  promoters  and  gamblers,  at  least  one  of  whom 
had  been  indicted  at  San  Francisco  in  connection  with 
the  bribery  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors. 
The  hackneyed  cry  of  "freak"  was  raised  against  the 
bills,  and  the  usual  course  of  discrediting  them  with  the 
public  through  adverse  publicity  in  the  San  Francisco 
press  resorted  to.  Whenever  the  measures  came  up 
in  Assembly  or  Senate,  every  inch  of  the  ground  was 
contested.  On  the  night  of  May  5,  for  example,  the 
Senate  was  kept  locked  up  for  hours  under  call  of  the 
Senate,  while  the  Senate  bill  was  pending.  The  follow- 
ing night,  May  6,  the  Assembly  suffered  the  same  ex- 
perience when  the  Assembly  measure  was  up  for  vote. 
The  time  of  the  Legislature  consumed  by  the  exploiters 
of  prizefighting,  the  social  evil,  gambling  and  groggery, 
at  the  1913  session,  cost  California  many  thousands  of 
dollars. 

At  the  committee  hearings  on  the  bills  prominent 
San  Francisco  politicians  and  officials  appeared  to  pro- 
test against  their  passage.  Members  of  the  San  Fran- 
cisco delegation  in  the  Legislature  made  strong  repre- 
sentation against  them.  Nevertheless,  the  Senate  Public 
Morals  Committee  reported  the  Senate  bill  back  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed.  The  Assembly 
Public  Morals  Committee  took  the  same  action  with  the 
Assembly  bill. 

The  Senate  bill  was  returned  to  the  Senate  from 
committee  on  April  9.  But  more  than  two  weeks  passed 


316  The  Prizefight  Bills 

before  Senator  Brown  could  get  his  measure  up  for 
passage.818 

On  April  25,  when  it  did  come  up,  it  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  seventeen  for  to  fourteen  against,  twenty- 
one  votes  being  necessary  for  its  passage.316  Brown, 
however,  gave  notice  that  he  would,  on  the  next  legisla- 
tive day,  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
measure  had  been  defeated. 

But  the  vote  on  reconsideration  was  not  taken  until 
four  days  later.  On  April  29,  reconsideration  was 
granted  by  a  close  vote  of  twenty-one  for  reconsideration 
to  sixteen  against.817 

Senator  Juilliard  offered  amendments  to  strike  out 


315  The  opposition  to  the  measure  was  led  by  the  San  Francisco 
delegation,  several  of  whom  had  seen  service  in  the  prize  ring. 
Their  arguments  were  amusing. 

Senator  Regan,  for  example,  gave  boxing  the  credit  of  develop- 
ing such  men  as  Supervisor  Andy  Gallagher  of  San  Francisco, 
Jimmy  Britt,  now  wealthy  and  respected  real  estate  owner  and 
actor,  James  J.  Corbett,  and  "Bat"  Nelson  and  others  who  were 
made  at  home  in  Washington  by  former  President  Roosevelt  for 
their  prowess  in  the  prize  ring.  Regan  declared  that  he  had  re- 
ceived far  more  injury  in  one  football  game  than  in  eighteen  glove 
contests  in  which  he  took  part  when  scaling  the  beam  at  125 
pounds.  The  sport,  he  claimed,  developed  his  weight  and  strength- 
ened his  nerves,  and  improved  him  otherwise.  He  gave  his  weight 
as  290  pounds. 

SIB  The  vote  by  which  the  Senate  prizefight  bill  was  defeated 
on  April  25,  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Boynton,  Breed,  Butler, 
Caminetti,  Carr,  Curtin,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins, 
Mott,  Shanahan,  and  Thompson — 17. 

Against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall,  Brown,  Bryant,  Finn,  Flint, 
Gerdes,  Grant,  Juilliard,  Lyon,  Regan,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  and 
Wright— 14. 

Brown  changed  his  vote  from  "aye"  to  "no"  that  he  might  give 
notice  of  reconsideration. 

SIT  The  vote  by  which  reconsideration  of  the  Senate  prizefight 
bill  was  granted  was: 

For  reconsideration  and  for  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogs- 
well, Curtin,  Flint.  Gates,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Mott, 
Shanahan,  and  Thompson — 21. 

Against  reconsideration  and  against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall, 
Bryant,  Cartwrlght,  Finn,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lyon, 
Owens,  Regan,  Rush,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 16. 


The  Prizefight  Bills  317 

the  provisions  of  the  Brown  bill,  and  to  substitute  pro- 
visions permitting  definitely  matches  not  to  exceed 
twenty  rounds  and  with  five-ounce  gloves.  This  amend- 
ment would,  if  adopted,  have  defeated  the  purposes  of 
the  bill.  But  before  the  amendment  was  acted  upon 
consideration  of  the  whole  subject  matter  went  over 
until  May  1.  When  the  bill  came  up  on  that  date  the 
proposed  Juilliard  amendment  was  defeated. 

Senator  Brown,  author  of  the  bill,  however,  ac- 
cepted amendments  to  permit  an  admittance  charge  to 
boxing  matches  not  to  exceed  twenty-five  cents;  in- 
creasing the  number  of  rounds  permitted  from  four  to 
eight,  and  providing  for  a  one-minute  intermission  be- 
tween rounds.818 

These  amendments  were  adopted.  Senator  Hewitt, 
to  safeguard  municipalities  not  controlled  by  tenderloin 
interests  from  possible  abuses  of  the  provisions  of  the 
bill,  offered  an  amendment  permitting  any  municipality 
to  prohibit  by  ordinance  the  holding  of  boxing  contests. 
The  Hewitt  amendment  was  also  carried.  A  motion  to 
have  the  bill  finally  acted  upon  on  the  following  day, 
May  2,  prevailed.  Nevertheless,  it  was  not  until  May  5 
that  it  came  up  for  final  consideration. 

sis  The  amendments  brought  support  to  the  bill  of  Senators  who 
had  regarded  the  provisions  of  the  original  measure  as  too  drastic. 
Of  the  original  bill,  Senator  Grant  said,  in  explanation  of  his  vote 
against  it:  "To  prohibit  the  admission  charge  to  clean  boxing,  as 
this  bill  provides  for,  would  practically  stop  legitimate  boxing  as  a 
healthful  recreation,  as  well  as  the  evils  of  the  extreme  of  prize- 
fighting. If  it  is  lawful  to  permit  clean  boxing,  as  this  bill  provides 
for,  it  should  be  lawful  to  charge  admission."  After  the  amendment 
of  the  bill,  Grant  became  one  of  its  strongest  supporters.  Of  Grant's 
support,  Senator  Brown  wrote:  "Senator  Grant  voted  to  give  me  a 
reconsideration,  thus  making  the  necessary  twenty-one  votes  to 
accomplish  this,  and  subsequently  he  has  consistently  been  one  of 
my  most  loyal  supporters.  His  vote  with  me  last  night  against  the 
Juilliard  amendment  (which  practically  enacts  the  present  law) 
was  a  vote  in  favor  of  my  bill." 


3i8  The  Prizefight  Bills 

The  opponents  of  the  measure  had  made  good  use 
of  the  four  days'  delay.  Juilliard,  when  the  bill  came 
up  on  May  5,  proposed  the  same  amendment  which  he 
had  offered  on  May  1,  and  which  on  that  day  had  been 
rejected.  Mr.  Juilliard  had  better  fortune  on  May  5. 
His  amendment,  by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  seventeen,819 
was  adopted.  The  adoption  of  the  Juilliard  amendment 
was  practically  defeat  of  the  Brown  bill.  In  this  way 
was  the  Senate  Anti-Prizefight  bill  defeated. 

As  hard  a  fight  was  carried  on  against  the  Assembly 
measure  as  had  been  given  the  Senate  bill.  As  in  the 
Senate,  the  principal  opposition  came  from  the  San 
Francisco  members.320 

The  measure,  when  it  was  finally  brought  to  vote, 


319  The  vote  by  which  the  Juilliard  amendment  was  on  May  5 
adopted,  was  as  follows: 

For  the  Juilliard  amendment  and  against  the  bill — Beban, 
Birdsall,  Boynton,  Bryant,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cohn,  Finn, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Juilliard,  Lyons,  Owens,  Regan,  Rush,  San- 
ford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 20. 

Against  the  Juilliard  amendment  and  for  the  bill — Anderson, 
Avey,  Benson,  Brown,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Curtin, 
Gates,  Grant,  Hewitt,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Mott,  and  Thompson 
—17. 

320  The    reasons    given    by    San    Francisco    Assemblymen — some 
of    whom,    as    in    the    case    of    the    San    Francisco    Senators,    had 
won    distinction    in    the    prize    ring — why    the    bill    should    be    de- 
feated,   were    quite    as    amusing    as    the    reasons    given    by    the 
San    Francisco   Senators. 

Assemblyman  Ryan,  of  San  Francisco,  declared  that  the  best 
argument  for  prizefighting  was  the  fact  that  thousands  of  young 
men  had  shouldered  muskets  and  gone  to  the  Civil  War  and 
Spanish-American  War  and  never  returned.  He  endeavored  to 
show  it  more  brutal  than  prizefighting. 

Assemblyman  Canepa  wanted  prizefights  to  continue  because 
the  "best  of  our  citizens  get  enjoyment  from  them." 

Assemblyman  McDonald  declared  his  father  before  him  had 
been  a  fighter  and  a  boxer,  his  brothers  had  been  boxers,  and 
he  had  won  the  amateur  welterweight  championship  of  America, 
and  the  game  had  not  hurt  him,  had  not  left  him  a  crook  or  a 
criminal. 


The  Prizefight  Bills  319 

was  defeated,  twenty-three  voting  for  it  and  thirty-nine 
against  it.821 

When  the  bill  was  voted  upon  the  second  time  under 
reconsideration,  it  came  within  two  votes  of  the  forty- 
one  necessary  for  its  passage.  Thirty-nine  members 
voted  for  the  bill,  and  only  thirty-four  against.322 


321  The  vote   by  which   the   Assembly   Anti-Prizefight   bill    was 
defeated  on  May  1  was: 

For  the  bill — Ambrose,  Bag-by,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Clark,  Wm. 
C. ;  Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Gates,  Guiberson,  Hinkle,  Kingsley, 
Kuck,  Moorhouse,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Simpson,  Tulloch, 
Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 23. 

Against  the  bill — Beck,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Bush, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Gary,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Collins,  Dower,  Ferguson, 
Ford,  Gabbert,  Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  John- 
son, Geo.  H.;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Judson,  Killingsworth,  Libby,  Mc- 
Carthy, McDonald,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Richardson,  Ryan,  Scott,  Shan- 
non, Shartel,  Shearer,  Slater,  Wall,  Walsh,  and  Weisel — 39. 

322  The  vote   by   which   the   Assembly  Anti-Prizefight   bill    was 
for  the  second   time  defeated  was: 

For  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Bagby,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bowman,  Brown,  Cary,  Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Cram, 
Ellis,  Emmons,  Farwell,  Fish,  Gabbert,  Gates,  Griffin,  Guiberson, 
Hinkle,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Libby,  Murray,  Palmer, 
Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Simpson,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Suther- 
land, Tulloch,  Wiesel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 39. 

Against  the  bill — Beck,  Bohnett,  Bradford,  Bush,  Byrnes,  Ca- 
nepa, Chandler,  Collins,  Dower,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Ford,  Gelder, 
Green,  Guill,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.; 
Judson,  Killingsworth,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Nolan,  Rich- 
ardson, Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Shartel,  Slater,  Smith,  Wall,  and 
Walsh— 34. 


CHAPTER   XXV. 
THE  REDLIGHT  ABATEMENT  ACT. 

As  the  question  of  permitting  racetrack  gambling  in 
California  had  been  the  chief  moral  issue  fought  out 
at  the  1909  legislative  session,  and  of  local  option  in  sa- 
loon licensing  at  the  session  of  1911,  the  question  of 
providing  practical  legal  machinery  for  reducing  prosti- 
tution to  its  minimum  by  making  investments  in  exploita- 
tion of  the  social  evil  insecure,  was  the  principal  moral 
issue  raised  at  the  1913  session. 

This  machinery  was  provided  in  the  so-called  Red- 
light  Abatement  Act,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Grant, 
and  in  the  Assembly  by  Bohnett.823 

There  were,  however,  a  large  number  of  measures 
dealing  with  the  problem  introduced  in  each  House. 
They  were  readily  divided  into  two  classes : 

(1)  Those  directed  against  persons,  both  male  and 
female,  who  have  part  in  the  social  evil.824 

(2)  That    directed    against    property    employed    in 
the   exploitation   of  the  social   evil,  the  Grant-Bohnett 
measure. 

And  it  is  important  to  note  that,  although  the  oppo- 
nents of  these  bills  insisted  that  the  social  evil  should  be 
recognized  as  a  necessity  and  regulated,  not  a  regula- 

323  Senate   Bill   320  and  Assembly   Bill   353. 

324  Important    among    the    bills    in    this    class    were    Assembly 
Bills   118   and   376;    and   Senate   Bills   390,    675,    676   and   677.     It  is 
interesting   to    note    that    the    cry    of    "freak"    was    raised    against 
all   these  bills.     Not  one  of  them  became  law. 


The  Redlight  Abatement  Act          321 

tory  measure  was  introduced  in  either  House.  Without 
exception,  every  measure  dealing  with  the  problem  was, 
on  its  face,  aimed  at  suppression  and  abatement. 

In  the  first  class  of  measures,  for  example,  the 
severity  of  the  penalties  was  increased  against  men  who 
profit  directly  or  indirectly  off  the  sacrificing  of  women 
to  tenderloin  exploitation.  But  it  is  notorious  that  simi- 
lar statutes — with  penalties  not  quite  so  severe — have 
been  on  the  books  for  years.  The  parasites  who  prey 
directly  off  the  women  of  the  underworld,  however,  have 
not  been  seriously  interfered  with.  Every  prostitute  is 
a  criminal  under  the  law.  But  instead  of  enforcing  the 
law,  the  police  have  elected  to  decide  when  and  against 
whom  the  law  shall  be  enforced.  It  is  a  matter  of  public 
discussion  that  the  police  permit  some  women  to  break 
the  law,  and  deny  that  privilege  to  others.325  One  of 
the  immediate  outcomes  of  the  system  has  been  corrup- 
tion which  has  made  the  very  name  "police"  a  byword. 
The  application  of  the  term  "tenderloin"  to  centers  of 


325  The  San  Francisco  Examiner,  in  its  issue  of  April  1,  1913, 
contained  the  following  news  item: 

"Kate  Eddington,  proprietor  of  a  resort  in  Jackson  street,  was 
fined  $200  by  Police  Judge  Shortall  last  week  for  selling  liquor 
without  a  license.  A  charge  of  conducting  a  disorderly  house  was 
dismissed,  but  the  house  was  closed  by  the  police. 

"The  State  Senate  passed  the  red-light  bill  two  days  later. 
Now  the  police,  from  Chief  White  and  Captain  Shea  down  to 
patrolmen,  are  in  a  quandary,  for  the  woman  has  applied  to 
them  for  permission  to  reopen.  She  says  that  she  is  denied  that 
right,  but  that  another  woman  has  been  given  such  permission. 
She  has  visited  Chief  White,  and  has  been  sent  to  Captain  Shea. 

"The  circumstances  have  placed  the  police  department  in  a 
position  which  they  admit  in  unenviable. 

"Captain    Shea    testified    before    Police   Judge    Shortall: 

"  'These   places   are   tolerated.' 

"  'It  is  a  fact,'  said  Chief  White,  'that  these  women  have  to 
get  permission  of  the  police  department  before  they  can  open.  It 
is  given  or  denied  by  the  captain  of  the  district.' 

Recently    the    police    began    a    crusade    against    houses    which 
sell  liquor  without   a  license." 


322          The  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

the  social  evil  is  said  to  have  originated  with  a  police 
captain  of  an  eastern  city  who  had  been  given  charge  of 
such  a  district,  and  who  boasted  that  in  future  he  would 
live  on  tenderloins.326 

The  futility  of  attempting  practical  dealing  with  the 
social  evil  problem,  under  such  conditions,  by  proceeding 
against  persons,  is  now  generally  recognized.  Four 
years  ago  Iowa  tried  another  course,  by  providing  the 
legal  machinery  by  which  any  citizen  could  proceed 
against  property  used  for  purposes  of  prostitution  or  as- 
signation. 

The  Iowa  law  declares  houses  of  prostitution  and 
of  assignation  to  be  nuisances,  and  holds  to  account 
both  the  proprietor  of  the  house  and  the  owner  of  the 
building.  Any  citizen,  whether  personally  injured  or 
not,  is  authorized  to  bring  suit  against  such  proprietor 
or  owner  for  maintaining  a  public  nuisance.  If  the  nui- 
sance be  proven,  the  personal  property  is  sold  as  in  the 
case  of  chattels  under  execution.  From  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  the  plaintiff's  costs  are  paid  and  the  balance 
turned  over  to  the  defendant  owner.  The  building  in 
which  the  nuisance  was  conducted  must  be  closed  for  one 
year  for  all  purposes  unless  the  owner  furnish  a  bond 
in  the  value  of  the  property  that  the  nuisance  shall  be 
abated. 

A  measure  similar  to  the  Iowa  law  was  introduced 

326  An  unsophisticated  lady,  residing:  near  the  suburban  home 
of  a  San  Francisco  police  officer,  remarked,  in  praise  of  her 
prosperous  neighbor: 

"Mr.    is    a   very   successful    policeman." 

There  are  many  "very  successful  policemen"  whose  duties 
take  them  into  the  tenderloin  districts. 

There  are,  too,  many  "very  successful"  district  attorneys,  who 
appear  curiously  incompetent  when  called  upon  to  enforce  the 
law  against  prostitute  and  pimp. 


The  Redlight  Abatement  Act          323 

at  the  1911  session  of  the  California  Legislature.327  It 
met  with  strong  opposition,  but  did  not  attract  much  at- 
tention from  the  general  public.  The  1911  Assembly 
Public  Morals  Committee  referred  the  bill  back  to  the 
Assembly,  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass.  But 
on  motion  of  Assemblyman  George  Fitzgerald  of  Ala- 
meda  County,  when  the  measure  came  up  for  vote,  it 
was  sent  to  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee.  The 
bill  was  not  returned. 

Following  adjournment  of  the  1911  session,  the 
Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  as  represented  in 
California,  undertook  a  campaign  of  education  in  the  in- 
terest of  such  legislation.  Their  leaflets  went  into  every 
community  of  the  State.  Lectures  dealing  with  the 
social  evil  and  the  forces  back  of  it  were  given  at  all  the 
centers  of  population.  Women's  social  and  political  or- 
ganizations were  interested.  By  the  time  the  1913  Leg- 
islature convened,  California  was  awake  to  the  issue. 
The  result  was  the  introduction  of  the  Grant-Bohnett 
bill.328 

327  Assembly   Bill    1014,    1911    series.      For    consideration    of   this 
measure,   see   "Story  of   the   California   Legislature   of   1911,"    page 
173. 

328  "The .  time   has   come,"    said   the   Fresno   Republican,    in    its 
issue    of    March    19,    1913,    "when    prostitution    must    be    outlawed, 
not   in   theory  merely,    but   in   fact.      The    'tenderloin,'   as   an   insti- 
tution,   must  go.     All    the   arguments   for  the   toleration   of   such   a 
criminal   reservation   have  been   exploded.     It  does   not   segregate; 
it  does   not  protect   either   physically  or  morally;    it   does   not   pre- 
vent,   but   rather   increases,    clandestine   vice   elsewhere;    it   is    not 
a   'necessary  evil;'   it  concentrates  a  multitude  of  evils   additional 
to    the    vice    to    which    it    is    devoted;    it    is    an    almost    universal 
source    of    police    graft    and    civic    corruption,    and    it   furnishes    an 
organized   market   for   the   organized   procurement  of  girls    to   lives 
of  vice.     The  whole  experiment,  all  over  the  world,  has  been  tried 
and  found  wanting.     Every  vice  commission  of  recent  years  which 
has    examined    the     question    has     reported     unanimously    against 
'segregation,'   though  nearly  all   the  members   entered  the   investi- 
gation   prejudiced    in   favor  of   it.     No   one   claims    that  any  gov- 
ernmental act  will  instantly  abolish  the  oldest  crime  in  the  world. 
But  we  are   at  least  ready  for  a  radical  move  forward,   and  the 


324          The  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

Inasmuch  as  the  exploitation  of  the  social  evil  yields 
larger  returns  than  any  other  form  of  vice  exploita- 
tion,329 great  opposition  to  the  enactment  of  such  a 
measure  developed.  Such  publications  as  the  San  Fran- 
cisco News  Letter  published  whole  page  denunciations  of 
the  authors  of  the  bill.  Chiefs  of  police — the  writer  is 
not  prepared  to  say  whether  or  not  they  were  "success- 
ful" chiefs  of  police — and  even  mayors  of  cities  for- 
warded their  expressions  of  grave  misgivings  of  the 
probable  effect  of  the  measure,  were  it  to  be  enacted.330 

But — strange  to  say — when,  a  few  days  before  the 
close  of  the  first  half  of  the  session,  the  measure  was 
discussed  before  a  joint  meeting  of  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly Public  Morals  Committees,  but  one  person  ap- 
peared to  oppose  the  measure,  Tim  J.  Crowley  of  San 
Francisco,  an  attorney. 

first  step  in  that  movement  is  the  abolition  of  all  recognition  or 
official  toleration  of  organized  commercial  prostitution,  whether 
concentrated  in  a  segregated  district  or  scattered  in  separate 
establishments.  Let  what  is  left  of  it  be  individual,  and  let  none 
be  left  which  can  be  discovered  and  stopped. 

"The  right  way  to  attack  it,  too,  is  on  its  business  side.  Let 
the  ownership  of  property  devoted  to  organized  vice  be  made  too 
risky  to  be  profitable.  Owners  are  accessible  and  responsible, 
and  capable  of  profiting  by  deterrent  example.  Besides,  they 
have  no  motive  or  temptation  except  the  financial  one,  and  that 
is  wholly  preventable." 

329  At  the  trial  of  E.  E.   Schmitz,  former  Mayor  of  San  Fran- 
cisco,  for  extorting  money  from  proprietors  of  French   restaurant 
assignation    houses,    it   developed   that   one   of   these   places    repre- 
sented an   investment  of   $400,000.     At  least,    one  great   San   Fran- 
cisco   Trust    Company    had    invested    trust   funds    in    one   of   these 
places.     At   a   discussion   of   the    redlight   problem   carried   on   be- 
fore  the   San   Francisco   Commonwealth   Club,    it  was   shown    that 
from    one    place    of    prostitution    representing    an    investment    of 
$8,000,   the  annual  gross   return   to   the  owners   was   over   $100,000. 

330  Said     the     San    Francisco    News    Letter,     in     its     issue     of 
March    22,    1913:       "Senator    Grant    proposes,    if    possible,    to    force 
his   bill   upon   the   people   of  California  regardless   of   consequences. 
Thirteen    mayors    and    chiefs    of   police    have    sent    their    views    to 
Sacramento,   and  Senator  Grant   refuses  to  listen  to   them.      They 
one  and   all    assert    that   segregation    must   be    maintained    in    the 
best   interests   of    the    country.      And    Senator    Grant    defies    them 
and  the  interests  of  the  people  he  pretends   to  serve." 


The  Redlight  Abatement  Act         325 

The  hearing  was  held  in  the  Senate  chamber.  It 
was  in  marked  contrast  to  a  similar  hearing  before  the 
Senate  Public  Morals  Committee,  held  in  that  same 
chamber  four  years  before,  when  the  Walker-Otis  Anti- 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was  under  discussion.331  As 
had  been  the  case  at  the  former  session,  the  Senate 
chamber  was  packed  to  the  doors.  But  the  crowd  was 
not,  as  in  1909,  of  the  tenderloin,  nor  representative  of 
the  tenderloin.  There  were  no  spoils-fattened  gamblers 
present  to  interrupt  those  who  spoke  in  favor  of  the 
measure,  as  there  had  been  four  years  before. 

The  Public  Morals  Committees  which  heard  the  ar- 
guments had  not  been  picked  to  defeat  the  measure.  In 
the  seat  which  Frank  Leavitt  had  occupied  when  the 
anti-gambling  measure  was  under  discussion,  sat  Edwin 
E.  Grant,  Senator  Wolfe's  successor  in  the  Upper 
House.  Senator  Grant  appeared,  as  Senators  Wolfe  and 
Leavitt  had  done,  as  member  of  the  Senate  Public 
Morals  Committee.  But  Senator  Grant,  as  author  of 
the  bill,  was  there  to  advocate  its  passage,  not  to  op- 
pose. 

Among  those  who  spoke  for  the  bill's  passage  were 
Rev.  Charles  N.  Lathrop  of  San  Francisco;  Miss  Bea- 
trice McCall,  probation  officer  of  Alameda  County ;  Mrs. 
Sarah  J.  Dorr,  president  of  the  Women's  Christian  Tem- 
perance Union;  Mrs.  George  A.  Swan,  representing  the 
Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  and  Christopher  Ruess, 
probation  officer  of  Oakland. 

Tim  J.  Crowley,  in  speaking  against  the  measure, 
labored  to  raise  a  laugh  at  the  expense  of  the  measure's 

331  See   "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"   page  64. 


326          The  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

advocates.  His  one  success  as  a  humorist  was  when  he 
observed:  "There  was  no  applause  when  I  mounted 
this  platform."  A  ripple  of  laughter  followed.  But 
the  crowd  was  clearly  laughing  at  Mr.  Crowley  and  not 
with  him. 

Crowley  announced  he  was  there  to  answer  ques- 
tions. Assemblyman  Clark  of  Oakland  bluntly  de- 
manded whom  Crowley  represented. 

The  attorney  hesitated. 

"Real  estate  interests,"  he  finally  said.  When  pressed 
further  he  stated  that  a  "real  estate  man  named  Moody" 
had  sent  him  to  Sacramento. 

Crowley  contended  that  two  propositions  confronted 
the  committees : 

(1)  Is  such  legislation  necessary? 

(2)  Can  it  be  carried  out? 

He  stated  that  it  is  not  necessary,  because  the 
Statutes  are  full  and  complete  on  this  subject.  He  held 
that  it  would  not  be  carried  out,  and  demanded  if  the 
committeemen  thought  there  would  be  a  rush  of  heroes 
to  close  tenderloin  places  should  the  measure  become  a 
law. 

But  he  held  there  was  danger  in  putting  into  the 
hands  of  irresponsible  persons  the  power  to  attack  prop- 
erty. He  held  that  under  the  bill's  provisions  no  apart- 
ment or  office  building  in  San  Francisco  would  be  safe 
against  attack. 

Senator  Grant  asked  Crowley  how  he  would  enforce 
the  law,  if  he  discovered  that  the  District  Attorney  were 
also  acting  for  vested  interests  which  had  part  in  tender- 
loin exploitation. 


The  Redlight  Abatement  Act          327 

"That  is  another  matter,"  replied  Crowley. 

"Why,"  demanded  Senator  Anderson,  "if  the  District 
Attorney  has  power  to  attack  such  abuses,  are  you  so 
alarmed  about  the  passage  of  Senator  Grant's  bill?" 

"I'm  not  alarmed  about  it,"  replied  Crowley,  "but  I 
believe  its  passage  would  be  an  act  of  folly." 

The  meeting  concluded  without  the  measure's  oppo- 
nents having  made  any  impression  against  it,  while  its 
proponents  had  scored  at  every  point. 

During  the  legislative  recess  the  proponents  of  the 
bill  canvassed  the  entire  State  in  its  promotion. 
Women's  organizations  circularized  every  county  and 
district.  The  women's  organizations  which  definitely 
endorsed  and  worked  for  the  measure  represented  a 
membership  of  about  50,000  organized  women.  They 
included  the  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  the 
Federated  Women's  Clubs,  the  Civic  League,  the  Juve- 
nile Protective  Association,  besides  many  smaller  bodies. 
The  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union  alone,  dur- 
ing the  constitutional  recess,  arranged  for  speakers  in 
twenty-three  counties. 

When  the  second  part  of  the  session  opened,  all 
California  had  a  clear  idea  of  what  the  bill  meant  and 
what  was  to  be  accomplished  under  it.  And  the  senti- 
ment was  universal  for  its  passage.  Literally  thousands 
of  telegrams  and  letters  were  received  by  Senators  and 
Assemblymen  urging  them  to  support  the  act.  No  bet- 
ter publicity  work  was  carried  on  for  or  against  any 
other  measure.  And  the  remarkable  part  of  it  was  that 
the  work  was  done  by  women,  who  were  entirely  igno- 
rant of  legislative  methods,  inexperienced  in  publicity, 


328          The  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

unfamiliar  with  political  conditions.  The  incident  dem- 
onstrates what  enlightened  public  opinion  can  accom- 
plish when  real  interest  is  aroused. 

The  effect  upon  many  members  of  the  Legislature 
was  amusing.  They  were  being  showered  with  letters 
and  telegrams  instigated  by  agents  of  public  service 
corporations,  urging  them  to  defeat  the  Conservation 
bill,  the  Insurance  bill,  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
bill,  and  many  others.  But  they  did  not  show  resent- 
ment at  receiving  these  inspired,  corporation-instigated 
communications.  They  were,  however,  very  much  put 
out  at  receiving  from  disinterested  citizens  requests  for 
their  support  of  the  Abatement  act.  But  resentful 
though  they  might  be,  they  returned  to  Sacramento  pre- 
pared to  act  in  accordance  with  the  general  demand 
that  the  bill  be  passed. 

But  the  supporters  of  the  measure  found  when  they 
returned  to  Sacramento  that  before  they  could  pass 
their  bill  they  must  clear  the  way  of  an  obstruction  that 
had  been  cleverly  raised  against  it. 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 
THE   BEBAN   RESOLUTION. 

A  few  days  before  the  Legislature  reconvened  for 
the  second  part  of  the  session,  Senator  Grant  announced 
in  an  interview  published  in  the  San  Francisco  news- 
papers, that  he  would,  when  the  Legislature  reassembled, 
introduce  a  concurrent  resolution  to  provide  for  a  legis- 
lative commission  to  make  thorough  investigation  of  the 
contributory  and  resultant  causes  of  the  white  slave 
traffic.  Senator  Grant  had  his  resolution  ready  when 
the  Legislature  reconvened.  But  within  ten  minutes 
after  the  Senators  had  taken  their  seats,  and  before  any 
business  other  than  the  appointment  of  the  usual  com- 
mittee to  notify  the  Governor  that  the  Senate  was  in 
session,  Senator  Beban  332  introduced  a  Senate  resolu- 

332  Senator  Beban  had  been  elected  to  the  State  Senate  from 
that  part  of  San  Francisco  in  which  that  city's  far-known  Bar- 
bary  Coast  was  located.  The  Senator  has  been  active  in  San 
Francisco  politics  for  many  years,  coming  into  prominence  during 
the  Schmitz-Ruef  regime.  He  had  held  several  positions  of  public 
trust.  He  was  one  of  Tom  Finn's  deputies,  when  Senator  Finn 
was  Sheriff  of  San  Francisco.  He  had  also  served  as  a  deputy 
under  a  former  San  Francisco  sheriff.  At  the  time  the  1913 
session  convened,  Senator  Beban  was  holding  a  $150-a-month  job 
on  the  San  Francisco  waterfront. 

Senator  Beban  had  also  served  several  terms  in  the  Legis- 
lature, having  been  elected  originally  to  the  Assembly.  His 
record  on  moral  issues  was  that  of  the  average  San  Francisco 
member.  In  the  1909  Assembly,  for  example,  Beban  was  one  of 
the  most  consistent  opponents  of  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Race- 
track Gambling  bill.  He  voted  every  time  against  this  measure. 
At  the  final  vote  only  ten  Assemblymen  voted  against  the  bill, 
Beban  was  one  of  them.  (See  Table  D,  "Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909,"  or  Assembly  Journals  for  that  session.) 

Beban  entered  the  Senate  in  1911.  The  Senator  followed  the 
example  of  Senator  Wolfe  and  Tom  Finn  in  opposition  to  Local 
Option  legislation.  He  voted  against  the  Local  Option  measure 
on  every  rollcall  save  one.  On  that  rollcall,  Senator  Beban  voted 


33O  The  Beban  Resolution 

tion,  calling  for  the  appointment  of  a  Senate  committee 
of  five  members  to  make  investigation  of  the  social  evil 
problem. 

At  Senator  Beban's  request,  the  resolution  was  sent 
to  the  Committee  on  Rules. 

The  resolution  gave  evidence  of  having  been  hastily 
drawn,  being  incomplete  in  several  particulars.  The 
committee333  corrected  these  defects,  provided  a  fund  of 
$1,000  for  the  investigation,  and  reported  the  resolution 
back  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted.33* 

for  the  Local  Option  bill  as  it  had  been  amended  under  the 
leadership  of  those  who  were  not,  to  put  it  mildly,  friendly  to 
such  legislation.  Among  other  remarkable  provisions  of  the 
amended  bill  was  one  that  liquors  should  not  be  drunk  or  con- 
sumed in  quantities  of  less  than  two  gallons.  Assemblyman 
March,  of  Sacramento,  when  called  upon,  in  the  Assembly,  to  vote 
on  this  question,  stated  that  he  refused  positively  to  vote  for  a 
provision  which  would  require  him  to  "drink  two  gallons  of 
'booze'  at  a  time,  and  compel  him  to  go  into  the  street  to  do  it." 

Senator  Beban,  however,  was  one  of  the  legislators  who  voted 
for  this  provision.  The  incident  was  considered  "a  great  joke  on 
the  'drys'." 

To  the  peculiar  sense  of  humor  with  which  some  are  gifted, 
the  Beban  resolution  was  no  doubt  regarded  as  "a  great  joke  on 
Grant,"  and  on  those  who,  with  Senator  Grant,  were  laboring 
to  secure  the  passage  of  an  effective  redlight  abatement  law. 

333  As    a    matter   of   fact,    however,    but    three   members    of    the 
committee,    Boynton,    Gerdes    and    Lyon,    passed    upon    the    resolu- 
tion.     The   two    other   members   of   the   committee,    Thompson    and 
Cartwright,    had   not   returned    to    Sacramento    from    the    constitu- 
tional recess. 

334  The    Beban    resolution,    as   amended    by    the    Committee    on 
Rules,   and  adopted  by  the   Senate,   read  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  There  are  now  pending  before  the  Senate  and  un- 
der consideration  before  committees  of  the  Senate,  bills  pertain- 
ing to  the  abatement  of  houses  of  ill-fame  and  so-called  'social 
evil  or  white  slave  traffic;'  also  bills  relating  to  minimum  wages 
for  women  in  the  State  of  California;  and 

"Whereas,  It  is  developed  in  other  sections  of  the  United 
States,  through  official  investigation,  that  there  is  a  close  rela- 
tionship between  those  two  measures  in  that  an  inadequate 
standard  of  wages  for  working  women  and  girls  which  makes  it 
impossible  for  them  to  procure  employment  at  a  compensation 
sufficient  to  maintain  themselves  in  decency  and  in  comfort  has 
been  a  potent  factor  in  many  of  them  seeking  lives  of  shame; 
be  it 

"Resolved,  That  a  special  committee  of  five  Senators  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  President  of  the  Senate  to  Investigate  all  phases 
of  the  so-called  social  evil  or  white  slave  traffic  and  the  relationship 
of  the  same  to  the  wages  of  working  women  in  California,  to  report 


The  Beban  Resolution  331 

In  the  meantime,  Grant  had  introduced  his  concur- 
rent resolution  calling  for  a  legislative  commission  of 
five  Senators  and  five  Assemblymen  to  investigate  the 
white  slave  traffic.335  The  Grant  resolution  was  referred 
to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Morals. 

When  the  Committee  on  Rules  advised  the  adoption 
of  the  Beban  resolution  Senator  Anderson  moved  that 
the  resolution  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Public 

its  findings  to  the  Senate  at  the  earliest  practicable  date  upon 
the  conclusion  of  such  investigation,  said  committee  to  have 
power  to  summon  witnesses,  administer  oaths,  send  for  papers 
and  books  and  transcribe  the  testimony.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
of  the  Senate  shall  serve  all  process  issued  and  required  to  be 
served  by  said  committee;  said  committee  may  sit  at  Sacramento 
or  such  other  places  as  may  be  found  best  suited  for  the  pur- 
poses of  said  investigation,  and  to  have  all  necessary  authority 
to  carry  out  the  full  purpose  of  this  resolution.  The  necessary 
assistants  for  such  committee  shall  be  assigned  from  the  regular 
employees  of  the  Senate,  who  shall  receive  no  additional  compen- 
sation for  their  services  to  said  committee,  and  the  incidental 
expenses  to  said  committee  shall  be  reported  to  the  Senate  and 
shall  be  paid  from  the  Contingent  Fund  of  the  Senate,  the  total 
cost  of  such  investigation  not  to  exceed  $1,000,  which  sum  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  Contingent  Fund  of  the  Senate 
and  the  Controller  is  directed  to  draw  his  warrant  therefor  and 
the  Treasurer  is  directed  to  pay  the  same." 

335  The  difference  in  effect  between  the  Beban  and  the  Grant 
resolution  was  this: 

The  Beban  resolution  provided  for  an  investigation  by  the 
Senate  only,  to  be  made  during  the  term  of  the  session.  If  the 
Assembly  wished  to  take  up  the  same  investigation  it  would  be 
obliged  to  appoint  an  independent  committee,  to  make  separate 
inquiry.  Such  procedure,  the  history  of  legislative  investigation 
shows,  is  neither  satisfactory  nor  practical.  In  1903,  for  ex- 
ample, a  Senate  committee  investigated  State  Prison  scandals, 
and  an  Assembly  committee  conducted  a  separate  and  entirely  in- 
dependent investigation  into  the  same  scandals.  The  newspapers 
reeked  with  the  details  of  the  needless  brutality  of  prison  authori- 
ties. The  public  was  aroused.  But  when  the  investigation  was 
over,  the  sensation  was  forgotten,  the  two-ways-pulling  investi- 
gators got  nowhere  and  accomplished  little  or  no  good. 

The  committee  provided  for  in  the  Grant  resolution,  on  the 
other  hand,  would  have  been  made  up  of  members  from  each 
house.  The  committee  would  have  had  two  years  for  its  work. 
Its  findings  would  have,  if  adopted,  been  the  findings  of  the 
Legislature,  and  not  of  one  House  of  the  Legislature  only. 

Assemblyman  Bohnett  also  introduced  the  resolution  Grant 
had  offered  in  the  Senate  in  the  Lower  House.  The  passage  of 
the  minimum  wage  law,  however,  providing  for  a  commission 
to  inquire  into  practically  the  same  subject-matter  as  named  in 
the  Grant-Bohnett  resolution,  made  the  appointment  of  the  pro- 
posed legislative  commission  unnecessary. 


332  The  Beban  Resolution 

Morals,  along  with  the  Grant  resolution,  that  the  two 
might  be  considered  together  on  their  merits. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  see  that  the  first  test  of  strength 
between  those  who  were  supporting  Grant  in  his  policy 
of  dealing  with  the  redlight  problem,  and  those  who  op- 
posed that  policy,  had  come.  Finn,  Boynton,336  Wright, 
and  Hans,  who  were  counted  against  the  Abatement  act, 
opposed  the  sending  of  the  Beban  resolution  to  the  Pub- 
lic Morals  Committee,  insisting  that  immediate  action 
be  taken  upon  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Butler,  Anderson, 
Kehoe,  and  Shanahan,  openly  for  the  passage  of  the 
Abatement  act,  spoke  for  the  sending  of  the  resolution  to 
the  Public  Morals  Committee  that  the  Grant  resolution 
might  be  given  equal  show  with  it. 

But  Beban's  supporters  won  out,  defeating  Ander- 
son's motion  to  refer  the  Beban  resolution  to  the  Public 
Morals  Committee,  by  a  vote  of  thirteen  to  eighteen.337 


336  Senator    Boynton's    legislative    record    on    moral    issues    had 
been  quite  the  reverse  of  those   of  the  gentlemen  whose   conten- 
tions he  supported  in  this  instance.     Senator  Boynton  at  previous 
sessions   had    led    the    fight   for    effective   an ti- racetrack   gambling 
legislation,    Local    Option    and    the    like;    while    Beban    and    Finn 
were  always  in  opposition.     The  assistance  which   Senator  Boyn- 
ton gave  them  in  this  instance,   therefore,   was  the   more  marked 
and   valuable.      Senator   Boynton   spoke    for   the    immediate   adop- 
tion   of    the   Beban    resolution. 

337  The  vote  by  which   the   Senate   refused  to   send   the   Beban 
resolution    to    the   Public   Morals    Committee    was    as    follows: 

To  send  the  Beban  resolution  to  committee — Anderson,  Avey, 
Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  COHN,  Gates,  Grant,  Jones,  Ke- 
hoe, Mott,  and  Shanahan — 13. 

Against  sending  the  Behan  resolution  to  committee — BEBAN, 
Birdsall,  BOYNTON,  Breed,  BRYANT.  CASSIDY,  Curtin,  FINN, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  HANS,  JUILLIARD,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Owens,  REGAN, 
Strobridge,  and  WRIGHT.— 18. 

Those  whose  names  are  in  capital  letters  later  voted  against 
the  Grant-Bohnett  Redlight  Abatement  Act. 


The  Beban  Resolution  333 

The  Beban  resolution  was  then  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-one  to  ten.338 

In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  nine  3S9 
of  the  eleven  Senators  who  were  later  to  vote  against 
the  Grant-Bohnett  Redlight  Abatement  act,  voted  against 
sending  the  Beban  resolution  to  the  Public  Morals  Com- 
mittee, while  ten  of  the  eleven  voted  for  the  immediate 
adoption  of  the  resolution.340  Cohn,  who  was  to  vote 
against  the  Abatement  act,  voted  to  refer  the  resolution 
to  committee,  but  voted  in  favor  of  the  resolution.  Cart- 
wright,  who  was  to  vote  against  the  Abatement  act,  did 
not  participate  in  the  discussion  over  the  two  resolutions. 

The  result  was  very  frankly  taken  as  defeat  for  those 
who  were  advocating  the  passage  of  the  Abatement 
act.341  Parliamentary  custom — although  by  no  means 

338  The  vote  by  which  the  Beban   resolution  was  adopted  was 
as   follows: 

For  the  resolution— BEBAN,  Birdsall,  BOYNTON,  Breed,  BRY- 
ANT, CASSIDY,  COHN,  Curtin,  FINN,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes, 
HANS,  JUILLIARD,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott,  Owens,  REGAN,  Stro- 
bridge,  and  WRIGHT— 21. 

Against  the  resolution — Anderson,  Avey,  Brown,  Butler,  Carr. 
Cogswell,  Grant,  Jones,  Kehoe,  and  Shanahan — 10. 

Those  whose  names  are  in  capital  letters  later  voted  against 
the  Grant-Bohnett  Redlight  Abatement  act. 

339  Beban,    Boynton,    Bryant,    Cassidy,    Finn,    Hans,    Juilliard, 
Regan,    and  Wright — 9. 

340  Beban,    Boynton,   Bryant,    Cassidy,   Cohn,   Finn,   Hans,    Juil- 
liard,  Regan,   and   Wright — 10. 

341  "Where    thirty-six    hours    ago,"     wrote     George     P.     West, 
special    legislative    representative    of    the    San    Francisco    Bulletin, 
in   discussing   the   adoption   of   the   Beban    amendment,    "even   op- 
ponents  of   the  Abatement  bill   were   predicting  its   passage   by   a 
big   majority,    to-day    they   hope    to    beat    it    in    the    Senate. 

"Senator  A.  E.  Boynton,  of  Oroville  and  San  Francisco,  is 
given  much  of  the  credit  or  blame  for  the  adoption  of  the  Beban 
resolution.  His  outspoken  opposition  to  the  Abatement  bill  dur- 
ing the  debate  encouraged  others  who  before  had  been  awed  by 
the  campaign  of  women's  clubs  in  its  favor.  Boynton  is  presi- 
dent pro  tern,  of  the  Senate  and  without  doubt  the  ablest  man  in 
either  House. 

"On  the  surface  there  is  nothing  in  Senator  Beban's  plans  for 
the  investigation  that  would  interfere  with  the  passage  of  the 


334  The  Beban  Resolution 

parliamentary  rule — would  require  President  Wallace  to 
appoint  the  author  of  the  resolution  chairman  of  the 
committee.  This  would  have  placed  Beban  at  the  head 
of  the  Abatement  movement  in  the  Senate. 

Although  the  custom  of  appointing  the  author  of  a 
resolution  chairman  of  the  committee  authorized  by  such 
resolution  is  by  no  means  general,342  the  cry  was  at  once 
raised  that  President  Wallace  was  bound  by  parliamen- 
tary practice  to  name  Beban  as  chairman.  It  was  the 
familiar  claquer's  cry,  as  insincere  as  it  was  clamorous. 
But  a  weaker  man  in  the  Lieutenant-Governor's  office 
would  have  been  influenced,  if  not  coerced,  by  it,  just  as 
members  of  both  houses  on  moral  and  even  industrial 
issues  were  influenced  and  coerced.  Wallace  did  not  ap- 
point Beban  chairman  of  the  committee.343  He  did, 


Abatement  bill.  The  vote  on  his  resolution  is  significant  only 
because  it  was  opposed  by  all  the  most  active  champions  of  the 
Grant-Bohnett  measure.  Whether  they  marshaled  their  full 
strength  or  not  on  the  vote  to  refer  Beban's  resolution  is  a  ques- 
tion. At  any  rate,  they  lost  the  first  skirmish,  and  opponents  of 
the  bill  are  now  for  the  first  time  hopeful  of  defeating  it." 

342  At  the  1911  session,  for  example,  Senator  Shanahan  intro- 
duced a  resolution  calling  for  Investigation  of  matters  pertaining 
to  school  textbooks.  When  the  committee  was  appointed,  Sena- 
tor Strobridge  was  named  chairman  of  the  committee.  Shana- 
han was,  however,  made  a  member  of  the  committee.  "When  I 
failed  to  receive  the  chairmanship,"  said  Shanahan,  in  discussing 
Beban's  complaint  of  being  slighted,  "I  did  not  go  about  com- 
plaining that  I  had  been  slighted.  I  went  about  the  work  assigned 
me  to  the  best  of  my  ability." 

843  The  Lieutenant-Governor's  act  was  approved  generally 
where  the  facts  were  known.  The  misleading  accounts  of  the  in- 
cident as  published  in  San  Francisco  newspapers,  however,  must 
have  worked  great  confusion  in  the  minds  of  readers  dependent 
upon  these  papers  for  their  news.  But  the  interior  press  gave 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  credit  for  what  he  had  done. 

"Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace,"  said  the  Fresno  Republican, 
in  its  issue  of  March  13,  1913,  "yesterday  turned  down  Dominick 
Beban  and  Senatorial  courtesy,  both  at  once,  and  was  well  justi- 
fied in  both  turndowns.  When  Beban  introduced  a  resolution 
calling  for  the  appointment  of  a  certain  committee,  custom  and 
courtesy  dictated  that  he  be  made  chairman  of  that  committee. 
But  when  it  became  evident  that  Beban  had  not  introduced  the 
resolution  in  good  faith,  and  that  his  purpose  was  to  sidetrack 


The  Beban  Resolution  335 

however,  give  Beban  membership  thereon.  Lee  C.  Gates 
was  made  chairman  of  the  committee,  with  Kehoe,  Be- 
ban, Butler,  and  Grant. 

Beban  protested  that  he  had  been  unfairly  dealt  with, 
and  finally  withdrew  from  the  committee.  Senator 
Campbell  was  appointed  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

The  committee  made  as  thorough  canvass  of  the  situ- 
ation as  was  possible  within  the  limited  time  at  its  dis- 
posal. It  found  that  the  appropriation  made  for  the  in- 
vestigation, and  the  time  allowed  were  entirely  inade- 
quate. The  committee  recommended  the  appointment  of 
a  legislative  committee  for  the  work,  to  be  made  up  of 
members  of  both  Houses,  or  else  a  commission  with  like 
powers  of  a  legislative  committee.344 

moral  legislation  which  he  did  not  dare  oppose,  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor  was  quite  right  in  defying  both  custom  and  courtesy, 
and  packing  the  committee  against  the  Senator  from  the  Barbary 
Coast  district.  The  remainder  of  the  Wallace  committee  was 
composed  of  absolutely  the  highest  type  of  men  in  the  Senate. 
The  only  'packing'  there  was  consisted  in  putting  aggressively 
decent  men  on  a  committee  to  investigate  a  resolution  whose 
purpose  was  not  in  the  interest  of  decency.  The  result  was,  of 
course,  that  the  committee  found  it  physically  impossible  to  carry 
out  Beban's  obstructive  investigation,  but  propose  a  later  and 
constructive  one,  which  shall,  however,  not  in  the  meantime  in- 
terfere with  the  consideration  of  bills  intended  to  curtail  the  ac- 
tivities of  some  of  Mr.  Beban's  constituents." 

34*  The  committee's   report  was  in  full  as  follows: 

"Mr.  President:  Your  committee  appointed  under  resolution 
of  March  11,  1913,  'to  investigate  all  phases  of  the  so-called  "so- 
cial evil"  or  "white  slavery"  and  the  relation  of  the  same  to  the 
wages  of  the  working  women  in  California,  to  report  its  finding  to 
the  Senate  at  the  earliest  practical  date  upon  the  conclusion  of 
such  investigation,'  begs  leave  to  report  as  follows: 

"That  your  committee  has  given  thorough  and  careful  consid- 
eration to  the  matter  of  said  resolution  and  the  duties  to  be  per- 
formed thereunder;  that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  that  it 
would  be  impossible  even  cursorily  or  perfunctorily  to  investigate 
the  said  'social  evil'  or  'white  slave  traffic'  in  all  its  phases: 
much  less  to  investigate  the  relationship  of  said  evil  and  traffic 
to  the  wages  of  the  working  women  in  this  State,  or  the  relation- 
ship of  the  wages  of  working  women  to  said  'social  evil.' 

"That  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee  the  scope  of  the  reso- 
lution is  so  wide  and  comprehensive  that  the  time  at  the  disposal 
of  your  committee  and  the  appropriation  made  for  such  investi- 
gation are  altogether  inadequate  to  the  end  to  be  reached;  that 


The  Beban  Resolution 

The  Senate  adopted  the  report  and  discharged  the 
committee. 

The  Assembly  at  the  time  the  committee  was  dis- 
charged had  passed  the  Grant-Bohnett  Abatement  bill, 
and  the  measure  was  pending  before  the  Senate.  A  poll 
of  the  Senate  had  shown  that  the  measure  would  pass 
that  body  with  several  votes  to  spare.  The  opposition 
had  abandoned  any  opinion  it  may  have  entertained  that 
the  bill  would  be  defeated. 


to  investigate  the  question  of  wages  alone  would  require  much 
more  time  than  the  remainder  of  this  session  of  the  Legislature, 
even  if  your  committee  were  to  devote  its  entire  time  to  said 
subject,  to  the  time  of  adjournment.  That  to  investigate  the 
question  of  the  so-called  'social  evil'  with  attendant  'white  slave 
traffic,'  in  all  its  phases  would  also  alone  require  many  months 
of  patient,  thorough  and  unremitting  attention  and  the  expendi- 
ture of  a  large  sum  of  money,  entirely  beyond  the  scope  of  time 
and  money  allowed  to  this  committee. 

"Your  committee  further  declares  its  full  sympathy  with  the 
object  to  be  obtained  and  it  urgently  recommends  that  an  investi- 
gation, either  by  a  committee  of  the  two  Houses  of  this  Legis- 
lature, armed  with  plenary  powers  and  equipped  with  an  appro- 
priation adequate  for  the  purpose,  or,  by  a  commission  created  by 
law  with  like  powers,  and  equipment,  be  authorized  by  this  Leg- 
islature to  convene  and  sit  at  the  earliest  possible  moment  and 
make  its  report  for  the  use  of  a  succeeding  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature." 


CHAPTER   XXVII. 
PASSAGE  OF  THE  REDLIGHT  ABATEMENT  ACT. 

The  adoption  of  the  Beban  resolution  by  the  Senate, 
the  open  opposition  to  the  Abatement  act  of  President 
pro  tern.  Boynton,  and  the  general  situation  which,  dur- 
ing the  first  fortnight  of  the  second  part  of  the  session, 
developed  in  the  Upper  House,  made  it  apparent  that 
the  Grant-Bohnett  bill  had  better  chance  of  passage  in 
the  Assembly  than  in  the  Senate. 

The  proponents  of  the  measure  accordingly  decided 
to  force  its  passage  in  the  Assembly,  secure,  if  possible, 
an  overwhelming  Assembly  vote  in  its  favor,  and  send 
it  to  the  Senate,  with  the  prestige  which  the  Assembly's 
favorable  action  would  give.  Under  this  arrangement, 
which  had  the  hearty  approval  of  Senator  Grant  and 
other  Senators  who  were  desirous  that  the  bill  be  passed, 
the  measure  was  brought  to  vote  in  the  Assembly  on 
March  20.345 

The  debate  on  the  attempted  amendment  of  the  meas- 
ure and  its  final  passage,  brought  out  prominently : 

( 1 )  The  astonishing  attitude  of  members  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  toward  the  subject  of  the  social 


345  Credit  for  the  Assembly's  prompt  action  on  the  measure 
is  due  Assemblyman  Bohnett,  of  San  Jose.  Bohnett  had  his 
forces  throughout  organized.  There  were  no  false  moves  nor  poor 
plays.  All  day  long  the  opposition  beat  against  the  measure's 
support  to  no  purpose.  No  impression  was  made.  To  Bohnett'a 
good  generalship  was  due  in  large  measure  the  overwhelming 
Assembly  vote  for  the  bill. 


338     Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

evil,  and  their  inability  to  understand  the  position  of  the 
supporters  of  the  bill. 

(2)  The  influence  women  had  had  in  bringing-  about 
the  conditions  which  insured  the  bill's  passage. 

San  Francisco  members  viewed  the  possible  operation 
of  the  proposed  law  with  almost  hysterical  alarm.  They 
predicted  freely  that  women,  if  the  bill  became  a  law, 
would  not  be  safe  on  the  streets  of  San  Francisco.  One 
member  went  so  far  as  to  predict  that  within  six  months 
after  the  law  had  gone  into  effect  the  Governor  would 
be  obliged  to  call  out  the  militia  to  protect  the  women 
of  San  Francisco.  Others  expressed  grave  concern  lest 
the  women  of  San  Francisco  be  outraged  by  the  male 
visitors  to  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  in  1915.  That 
men  should  of  their  own  free  will  vote  for  such  a  bill 
was  beyond  the  comprehension  of  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers. 

"Many  will  vote  for  this  bill,"  said  one  San  Francisco 
member,  "because,  to  put  it  in  plain  English,  they  have 
been  buffaloed."346 


348  The  names  of  those  San  Francisco  members  who  made 
these  arguments — although  they  were  used  freely  in  the  news- 
paper reports  of  the  debate — have  been  purposely  omitted.  The 
arguments  showed  a  state  of  unmorality,  as  measured  by  stan- 
dards of  Western  civilization — a  state  of  ununderstanding  sav- 
agery, if  you  like — rather  than  immorality.  There  is  nothing  to 
be  gained  by  parading  before  the  public  the  names  of  the  six  or 
eight  San  Francisco  members  who  made  these  arguments.  That 
such  arguments  were  made,  and  that  but  one  member  of  the 
San  Francisco  Assembly  delegation  voted  for  the  bill,  is  suffi- 
cient. But  the  incident  does  suggest  an  element  at  the  large 
centers  of  population,  sufficiently  strong  at  least  to  dictate  legis- 
lative representation,  which  is  as  completely  out  of  touch  and 
sympathy  with  Western  standards  and  morality  as  African  Hot- 
tentot or  Australian  Bushman.  Here  is  a  problem  which  becomes 
something  more  than  political.  That  this  element  is,  however, 
in  small  minority,  and  not  representative  of  San  Francisco,  has 
been  repeatedly  demonstrated.  See  footnote  5. 


Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act    339 

The  gentleman's  "plain  English,"  and  "plain  under- 
standing of  the  situation"  were  about  on  a  par. 

That  the  urging  of  women  had  had  much  to  do  in  in- 
fluencing members  to  vote  for  the  measure  was  brought 
out  repeatedly. 

"I  have  some  doubts,"  said  Inman  of  Sacramento,  in 
concluding  his  speech  for  the  bill,  "as  to  whether  this  act 
will  bring  about  the  condition  which  Mr.  Bohnett  wants. 
But  ninety-eight  per  cent  of  the  women  of  my  district 
want  me  to  vote  for  this  measure.  I  shall  vote  for  it." 

Smith  of  Alameda  County  stated  that  personally  he 
opposed  the  bill,  but  that  1,500  of  his  constituents  had 
urged  him  to  vote  for  it.  Although  he  expressed  re- 
sentment at  alleged  threats  which  had  been  made  to  him 
if  he  failed  to  vote  for  the  measure,  he  stated  he  would 
yield  to  the  demands  of  his  constituents  and  vote  for  the 
bill. 

"Women  of  my  district,"  said  Smith,  "have  seen  fit 
to  threaten  me.  I  regret  that  they  have  done  so.  I  have 
my  doubts  about  this  bill  doing  all  that  is  expected  of  it. 
But  on  moral  issues  I  believe  women  to  be  the  best 
guides.  For  that  reason,  I  shall  vote  for  the  bill." 

Sutherland  of  Fresno,  one  of  the  five  members  from 
outside  San  Francisco  who  voted  against  the  bill,  went 
so  far  as  to  charge  that  "not  forty-one  members  of  this 
Assembly  but  believe  this  bill  is  bad." 

"In  voting  against  it,"  Sutherland  continued,  "I  know 
that  I  am  signing  my  political  death  warrant.  But  I 
shall  vote  as  my  conscience  dictates.  I  believe  that  the 
womanhood  of  California  will  be  injured  if  this  bill  goes 
on  the  Statute  books." 


340    Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

Killingsworth  asked  of  Bohnett  what  was  to  become 
of  the  prostitutes  if  the  measure  became  a  law.  "Are 
they,"  he  demanded,  "to  be  lined  up  and  shot,  or  driven 
into  the  sea,  as  in  uncivilized  countries?" 

Bohnett  characterized  the  question  as  "absurd." 
An  attempt  to  delay  action  on  the  bill  by  forcing  ad- 
journment before  the  vote  on  the  measure  could  be 
taken,  was  defeated,  twenty-seven  voting  for  and  fifty- 
three  against  adjournment.347  The  roll  on  the  passage  of 
the  bill  was  then  called,  and  the  measure  passed  by  a 
vote  of  sixty-two  to  seventeen.348  Only  five  members 
from  outside  San  Francisco — Bagby,  Killingsworth, 
Murray,  Sutherland,  and  White — voted  against  the  bill. 


3*7  The  vote  by  which  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  defeated  was 
by  the  following  vote: 

Ayes — Messrs.  Alexander,  Bagby,  Bowman,  Bradford,  BUSH, 
CANEPA,  COLLINS,  Dower,  Ferguson,  FORD,  Griffin,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Geo.  H.;  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Killingsworth,  Libby,  Mc- 
CARTHY,  McDONALD,  Murray,  NOLAN,  RICHARDSON,  RYAN, 
SCHMITT,  SCOTT,  SHANNON,  WALSH,  and  White— 27. 

Noes — Messrs.  Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict,  Bloodgood,  Bohnett, 
Brown,  Byrnes,  Gary,  Chandler,  Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.; 
Cram,  Ellis,  Kmmons,  Farwell,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gab- 
bert,  Gates,  Gelder,  Green,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle,  John- 
stone,  W.  A.;  Judson,  Kingsley,  Kuck,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern, 
Mouser,  Nelson,  Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Shartel,  Shearer, 
Simpson,  Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tul- 
loch,  Wall,  Weisel,  Weldon,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young— 53. 

The  names  of  the  San  Francisco  members  are  printed  in  capi- 
tal letters.  Every  one  of  the  thirteen  San  Francisco  members 
voted  to  adjourn. 

348  The  vote  by  which  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill  passed 
the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict,  Bloodgood, 
Bohnett,  Bowman,  Bradford,  Brown,  Byrnes,  Gary,  Chandler, 
Clark,  Wm.  C. ;  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Cram,  Dower,  Ellis,  Emmons, 
Farwell,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Fitzgerald,  Gabbert,  Gates, 
Gelder,  Green,  Griffin,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hayes,  Hinkle,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Geo.  H.;  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  Johnstone,  W.  A.;  Judson, 
Kingsley,  Kuck,  Libby,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Mouser,  Nelson, 
Palmer,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Roberts,  Scott,  Shartel,  Shearer,  Simp- 
son, Slater,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Tulloch,  Wall,  Weisel, 
Weldon,  Wyllie,  and  Young— 62. 

Against  the  bill — Bagby,  Bush,  Canepa,  Collins,  Ford,  Killings- 
worth,  McCarthy,  McDonald,  Murray,  Nolan,  Richardson,  Ryan, 
Schmitt,  Shannon,  Sutherland,  Walsh,  and  White — 17. 


Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act    341 

The  overwhelming  vote  which  the  measure  had  re- 
ceived in  the  Assembly  unquestionably  strengthened  it 
in  the  Senate.  Members  who  had  been  counted  against 
it,  after  the  Assembly  vote  were  found,  in  a  poll  taken 
of  the  Senate,  to  be  declaring  themselves  for  it.  The 
day  after  the  committee  appointed  under  the  Beban  reso- 
lution made  its  report  and  was  discharged,  the  bill  came 
up  for  final  consideration. 

The  debate  took  a  somewhat  different  range  than  it 
had  in  the  Assembly.  Two  of  the  principal  points  made 
against  it  were,  that  under  its  provisions  property  might 
be  confiscated,349  and  that  the  police,  of  necessity  in 
close  touch  with  the  social  evil  problem,  were  insisting 
that  the  plan  of  abatement  proposed  is  impracticable. 
Senator  Benson  replied  effectively  to  this  argument, 
showing  that  "the  police  system  of  vice  regulation  has 
been  a  miserable,  crying,  shameful  failure."850 

349  Senator   Cohn,    of   Sacramento,    was   among   those   who   an- 
nounced his  opposition  to  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  it  provided 
for   virtual   confiscation   of  property. 

"There  is  not  a  thing,"  Caminetti  advised  Cohn  in  reply,  "in 
this  bill  that  confiscates  your  property  or  the  property  of  any 
other  good  citizen  in  California.  You  have  entirely  misread  this 
bill.  If  your  property  is  rented  for  legal  purposes,  the  whole 
State  will  protect  you  in  it.  My  friend,  you  have  been  misled. 
Property  that  is  not  used  for  illegal  purposes  is  in  no  danger." 

"God  knows,"  concluded  Caminetti,  "that  this  thing  has  gone 
far  enough.  In  every  community  is  some  man  who  enjoys  enor- 
mous returns  from  his  property  by  renting  it  to  unfortunate 
women  at  three  and  four  times  its  legitimate  rental.  Do  you 
mean  to  say  that  when  you  proceed  against  such  men  that  you 
are  confiscating  property? 

"Segregation  has  been  tried  from  the  beginning  and  never  has 
succeeded.  It  is  only  now  that  some  good  women  have  succeeded 
in  creating  public  sentiment  that  we  have  Nation-wide  movement 
for  the  solution  of  this  problem." 

350  Benson's    speech    was    one    of    the    most    effective    made    In 
favor  of  the  bill.     "I  am  not  a  prophet,"  said  Benson,   "and  I  do 
not  claim  to  know  how  this  act  will  work.     I  do  know  how  police 
supervision   has   worked,   and   I   am   ready   to   try   a   new   remedy. 
The   history  of   attempted   vice    regulation    and   suppression,    aside 
from  the  recent  history  of  Iowa,   proves  one  thing  and  one  thing 
only — the    utter    inability    of    the    police    rooted    in    an    almost   in- 


342    Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

Senator  Boynton  was  the  principal  speaker  against 
the  bill.  He  was  probably  the  most  influential  member 
of  the  Senate.  But  his  words  failed  to  convince,  nor  was 
any  vote  changed  by  his  argument  or  his  influence. 

The  measure  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty- 
nine  to  eleven.351  Two  San  Francisco  members  voted 
for  the  bill — Grant  and  Gerdes.  Six  Senators  from  out- 
side San  Francisco — Boynton,  Cartwright,  Cohn,  Hans, 


variable  and  determined  disinclination  to  cope  with  this  evil. 
The  fact,  if  fact  it  be,  that  efforts  at  suppression  in  some  large 
cities  have  proved  abortive,  loses  its  significance  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  work  of  suppression  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  police  departments  who  were  vigorously  opposed  to  the  policy 
and  were  intent  on  proving  that  they  could  not  accomplish  the 
task  which  was  set  before  them.  It  is  a  strange  workman  who 
cannot  with  deliberate  intent,  demonstrate  his  own  inefficiency. 

"In  the  matter  of  prostitution,  a  peculiar  situation  has  arisen. 
By  common  consent  in  most  cities,  the  police  department  is,  with 
regard  to  this  traffic,  the  Legislature,  the  judge,  the  jury  and 
often  the  executioner.  These  prerogatives,  the  police  have  come 
to  believe  theirs  by  right,  and  like  all  officials,  they  are  jealous 
and  resentful  of  any  proposed  usurpation  of  their  authority.  But 
how  have  they  exercised  their  authority?  In  this  age  of  enlight- 
enment, when  we  are  making  gigantic  strides  in  education,  art, 
science  and  mechanics,  the  white  slave  traffic  has  reached  pro- 
portions where  it  is  startling  the  civilized  world.  Prostitution  Is 
the  controlling  political  power  in  great  cities.  Its  corrupting  in- 
fluence is  reaching  through  the  entire  body  politic.  The  traffic 
in  young  womanhood  has  become  a  great  commercialized  enter- 
prise, and  yet  men  cry,  'Let  well  enough  alone.' 

"I  know  the  police  system  of  vice  regulation  has  been  a  miser- 
able, crying,  shameful  failure.  This  law  purposes  to  take  this 
duty  from  their  shoulders,  to  allow  the  private  citizen  an  oppor- 
tunity to  protect  his  home  and  his  offspring,  and  to  make  the 
chief  recipient  of  the  benefits  of  vice  the  chief  sufferer.  I  believe 
it  is  a  duty,  absolute  and  imperative,  to  give  it  a  trial." 

861  The  vote  by  which  the  Grant-Bohnett  Redlight  Injunction 
bill  passed  the  Senate  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Breed,  Brown, 
Butler,  Caminetti.  Campbell,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Curtin,  Flint,  Gates, 
GERDES,  GRANT,  Hewitt,  Jones.  Kehoe.  Larkins,  Lyon,  Mott, 
Owens,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyr- 
rell—29. 

Against  the  bill— BEBAN,  Boynton,  BRYANT,  Cartwright,  CAS- 
SIDY,  Cohn,  FINN,  Hans,  Juilliard,  REGAN,  and  Wright— 11. 

The  members  whose  names  are  printed  in  capital  letters  are 
from  San  Francisco. 


Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act    343 

Juilliard,  and  Wright — joined  the  remainder  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  in  voting  against  it.352 

After  the  bill's  passage,  strong  pressure  was  brought 
upon  Governor  Johnson  to  veto  the  measure.  C.  B. 
Calahan  of  San  Francisco  requested  a  hearing  in  oppo- 
sition. The  Governor  accordingly  called  a  public-hearing 
at  his  office.  When  the  hour  arrived,  the  office  was 
packed  with  representative  men  and  women  from  all 
parts  of  California,  there  to  urge  that  the  bill  be  signed. 
But  Mr.  Calahan,  at  whose  instigation  the  meeting  had 
been  called,  did  not  appear. 

Governor  Johnson  asked  if  there  were  any  oppo- 
nents of  the  bill  present. 

None  responded. 

"It  will  not,"  announced  the  Governor,  "be  necessary 
to  go  into  the  matter  further." 

Governor  Johnson  thereupon  signed  the  bill.      The 

352  "The  consternation  in  San  Francisco,"  said  the  Fresno  Re- 
publican in  its  issue  of  March  31,  1913,  "over  the  passage  of  the 
'Redlight  Injunction  bill'  is  ludicrous.  Of  course,  the  panic  of 
the  indecent,  in  San  Francisco,  or  anywhere,  is  natural  enough. 
We  do  not  expect  gamblers  to  welcome  anti-gambling  laws,  nor 
saloonkeepers  to  welcome  prohibition.  Neither  do  we  expect 
prostitutes  and  their  consorts  to  welcome  a  law  which  will  dis- 
organize and  decommercialize  their  business.  But  this  alarm  of 
the  vicious  is  the  least  part  of  the  consternation.  In  fact,  on 
the  side  of  mere  vice,  they  are  not  particularly  concerned.  For- 
ever and  ever,  the  vicious  will  find  each  other  out,  and  there  is 
no  risk  of  the  calamity  of  rendering  compulsorily  virtuous  those 
who  do  not  desire  to  be  so.  The  absurd  part  of  the  consterna- 
tion is  on  the  part  of  the  decent,  whose  personal  habits  will  be 
not  in  the  least  affected  by  the  new  order  of  things.  Their  dif- 
ficulty is  not  practical,  but  mental.  They  are  so  accustomed  to 
regarding  organized  commercial  vice  as  a  fixed  part  of  the  order 
of  the  universe  that  any  attempt  to  interfere  with  it  staggers 
their  imaginations.  It  is  as  if  the  Legislature  should  repeal  the 
multiplication  table.  None  of  us  would  be  hurt,  but  we  should  be 
greatly  excited  over  the  dispute  whether  the  Legislature  or  our- 
selves had  gone  crazy.  This  is  the  exact  state  of  mind  in  many 
reputable  San  Francisco  circles  to-day. 

"And  this  will  be  one  of  the  important  gains  of  the  new  law. 
The  'Barbary  Coast'  of  San  Francisco  has  corrupted  the  bodies  of 
only  a  fraction  of  its  citizenship.  It  has  corrupted  the  standards 
of  propriety  and  public  responsibility  of  an  immensely  larger 


344     Passage  of  Redlight  Abatement  Act 

pen  with  which  he  affixed  his  signature  he  presented  to 
Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr  of  College  Park,  president  of  the 
Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union  in  Northern  Cali- 
fornia.863 


fraction.  What  was  publicly  tolerated  was  tacitly  assumed  to  be 
Ineradicable.  Now  that  actual  serious  effort  is  made  to  take  the 
laws  against  it  literally,  the  public  mind  will  be  opened,  after 
recovering  from  the  first  shock,  to  the  idea  that  the  thing  to  do 
with  that  sort  of  an  evil  is  really  to  fight  it." 

353  The  Redlight  Abatement  act  is  one  of  the  measures  held 
up  under  the  Referendum.  It  will  be  voted  upon  at  the  general 
election  in  November,  1914.  Until  sustained  by  a  vote  of  the 
people  it  does  not,  under  the  referendum  provision  of  the  State 
Constitution,  go  into  effect. 

At  the  banquet  given  by  California  Progressives  to  Winston 
Churchill  soon  after  the  Abatement  act  had  been  passed,  and 
while  the  Legislature  was  still  In  session,  Governor  Johnson  took 
occasion  to  say  of  the  measure,  and  the  then  rumored  referendum 
movement  against  it: 

"So  far  in  the  present  session  there  has  been  but  one  bill  of 
any  consequence  at  all  signed;  and  that  is  the  Redlight  Abate- 
ment bill.  Ask  the  purchased  press,  which  is  breathing  animus 
against  this  and  similar  legislation,  if  they  consider  the  Redlight 
Abatement  bill  'freak  legislation.' 

"Maybe,  these  gentry  of  the  Chronicle  represent  the  senti- 
ment of  San  Francisco.  (Cries  of  'No!')  It  may  be  that  particu- 
lar measure,  if  submitted  to  a  vote  in  San  Francisco  alone, 
might  be  overwhelmingly  defeated.  But  let  me  say  if  it  were 
submitted  also  to  the  people  outside  the  city,  it  would  win  enthu- 
siastic indorsement  by  a  vote  of  at  least  five  to  one  of  the  en- 
tire State." 


CHAPTER    XXVIII. 
THE  WHIRLWIND  FINISH. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  an  attempt  has  been  made 
to  give  some  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  opposition  cre- 
ated every  time  the  Legislature  attempts  correction  of 
an  abuse  or  regulation  of  an  exploiting  interest.  But 
the  subjects  treated  are  but  few  of  the  many  which 
could  have  been  used  for  illustration.  The  lobby  that 
assembled  to  oppose  the  Kehoe  Insurance  bill  was  no 
greater,  no  better  prepared,  no  more  firmly  entrenched 
politically  than  was  the  lobby  that  haunted  the  corridors 
in  opposition  to  the  Boynton  Workmen's  Compensation 
act.  The  State-wide  publicity  campaign  in  opposition 
to  the  Conservation  bill  was  no  better  conducted  and  no 
more  effective  than  was  the  publicity  campaign  em- 
ployed against  the  so-called  "Blue  Sky"  bill  to  pro- 
tect the  public  from  exploiting  promoters  of  question- 
able business  enterprises.  The  crafty  campaign  of 
landowners  who  can  better  exploit  their  holdings  with 
Asiatic  and  European  cheap  labor  than  with  American 
laborers  who  hold  to  American  standards,  to  prevent 
the  passage  of  alien  land  laws,  was  no  more  crafty 
than  the  campaign  to  block  legislation  which  should 
weaken  the  grip  of  steam  railroads  upon  electric  trac- 
tion development.  And  so  of  the  passage  of  the  Civil 
Service  law,  the  Minimum  Wage  law,  the  non-partisan 


346  The  Whirlwind  Finish 

features  of  the  Primary  Election  law,  and  many  others 
as  meritorious,  could  be  shown  much  the  same  opposi- 
tion as  has  been  considered  in  the  preceding  chapters. 

Some  idea  of  what  this  opposition  was  can  be  gath- 
ered from  the  fact  that  not  one  of  the  several  measures 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  had,  previous  to 
April  21,  passed  either  House.  This  was  almost  four 
months  after  the  Legislature  convened.  Not  one  of 
them  had  passed  both  Houses  until  the  mad  rush  of  the 
last  week  of  the  session.  The  narrow  margin  by  which 
the  Conservation  bill  was  passed  has  been  shown;  the 
narrow  margin  by  which  the  Insurance  bill  was  defeated 
has  been  given.  Had  not  the  Progressive  members  in 
the  chaos  in  which  they  found  themselves  in  the  closing 
days  of  the  session,  united  on  the  passage  of  what  were 
deemed  the  most  important  bills,  the  record  of  all  of 
them,  Conservation  bill  and  all,  would  have  been  that  of 
the  Insurance  bill.  It  was  only  by  ignoring  the  lobby  in 
those  last  days,  and  acting  according  to  their  own  best 
light,  that  the  Progressive  members  succeeded  in  enact- 
ing any  progressive  legislation  at  all.  That  legislation 
thus  enacted  could  be  carefully  considered,  or  even  intel- 
ligently passed  upon,  few  will  contend.  But  it  was  the 
best  that  could  be  done  under  the  present  legislative 
plan. 

Of  all  the  measures  introduced  at  the  1913  session, 
none  was  more  important  than  the  Workmen's  Com- 


The  Whirlwind  Finish  347 

pensation  act.354  This  measure  car- 
WORKMEN'S  ried  to  its  logical  conclusion  the 

COMPENSATION     policy355   that   accidents   in   industry 
ACT.  should  be  made  a  charge  against  the 

industry  in  which  they  occur.  The 
provisions  of  the  act  were  made  compulsory  instead  of 
elective.  Provision  was  made  for  State  industrial  insur- 
ance to  protect  employees  from  extortion  by  private  com- 
panies. 

At  once  opposition  to  the  bill  was  developed  in  all 
parts  of  the  State.  The  principal  source  of  opposition 
was  from  insurance  companies  doing  an  industrial  acci- 
dent business.  Such  companies  started  a  State-wide 
campaign  against  the  provisions  of  the  measure. 

The  insurance  companies'  interest  was  to  prevent  the 
State  engaging  in  industrial  insurance.  But  this  was  not 
given  prominence  in  their  opposition.  Farmers  were  led 
to  believe  that  the  provisions  of  the  bill  meant  ruin  for 
them.  Clever  lobbyists  appeared  at  Sacramento  to  pre- 
sent arguments  against  the  bill  directly  to  members  of 
the  Legislature.  Such  publications  as  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle  kept  up  an  almost  daily  tirade  of  condemna- 
tion. Letters  and  telegrams  from  misinformed  constitu- 
ents poured  in  upon  the  members  urging  them  to  vote 
against  the  measure.  There  were  the  delays  common 
to  all  measures  which  powerful  interests  oppose.  There 
were  the  usual  committee  meetings,  the  almost  endless 

354  Senate  Bill  905,  introduced  by  Boynton. 

355  The  State  adopted  this  policy  in   1911   with   the   passage   of 
the   Roseberry   act.      See    "Story   of   the    California    Legislature   of 
1911,"  page  236. 


348  The  Whirlwind  Finish 

debates  of  the  opposition,  and  the  constant  stream  of 
proposed  amendments. 

The  most  important  amendments  opposed  by  the 
proponents  of  the  bill  were  offered  by  Senator  Wright. 

The  first  of  these  was  in  the  form  of  a  resolution 
recommitting  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on  Labor  and 
Capital  with  instructions  to  amend  it  so  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  measure  should  be  made  elective  instead 
of  compulsory.  The  resolution  was  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  six  to  twenty-two.356 

The  second  of  Wright's  proposed  amendments  struck 
from  the  measure  those  sections  relating  to  State  insur- 
ance. This  amendment  was  also  offered  in  the  form  of 
a  resolution  recommitting  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on 
Labor  and  Capital  with  instruction  to  amend.  But  the 
second  amendment,  as  in  the  case  of  the  first,  was  over- 
whelmingly defeated.357  The  third  of  the  important 
amendments  offered  by  Wright  eliminated  the  para- 
graphs relating  to  an  inspection  department  for  accident 
prevention,  and  proposed,  as  a  substitute,  an  entirely  new 
act.  The  proposed  change  was  also  defeated  by  a  six  to 
twenty  vote. 

The  bill  finally  passed  the  Senate  on  April  28  by  a 
vote  of  thirty  to  five.  It  passed  the  Assembly,  after  at- 

356  The  vote  by  which  this  first  move  to  amend  the  bill  was 
defeated  was  as  follows: 

For  Wright's  plan — Campbell,  Cohn,  Curtin,  Julliard,  Larkins, 
and  Wright — 6. 

Against  Wright's  plan — Anderson,  Beban,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Boynton,  Breed,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Caminetti,  Carr,  Cogs- 
well, Finn,  Flint,  Gates,  Gerdes,  Regan,  Rush,  Shanahan,  Stro- 
bridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 22. 

857  The  Senate  votes  on  progressive  measures  referred  to  in 
this  chapter  will  be  found  in  Table  I  of  the  appendix,  and  the 
Assembly  votes  in  Table  II.  The  Senate  votes  on  labor  measures 
will  be  found  in  Table  V,  and  the  Assembly  votes  in  Table  VT. 


The  Whirlwind  Finish  349 

tempts  to  amend  it  had  failed,  three  days  before  adjourn- 
ment, with  only  thirteen  of  the  eighty  members  voting 
against  it,  and  fifty-five  for  it. 

The  enactment  of  a  "Blue  Sky"  law  was  opposed 
quite  as  resourcefully  as  that  of  any  measure  before  the 
Legislature.     A     publicity     bureau 
THE  "BLUE  SKY"    kept  the  press  of  the  State  supplied 
MEASURE.  with  arguments  against  the  measure. 

The  usual  opposing  lobby  was  main- 
tained at  the  Capital. 

The  measure  was  repeatedly  rewritten  to  meet  objec- 
tions which  were  from  time  to  time  proposed.358  It 
finally  passed  both  Houses  in  form  so  effective,  at  least, 
as  to  mean  continuance  of  the  opposition  which  had  been 
waged  against  such  legislation  from  the  opening  days  of 
the  session.  The  measure  is  one  of  those  whose  opera- 
tions have  been  suspended  by  invoking  the  Referendum. 
The  bill  passed  the  Assembly  with  only  one  member, 
Schmitt  of  San  Francisco,  voting  against  it.  Fifty-five 
Assemblymen  voted  for  it.  There  was  but  one  Senator 
who  voted  against  it.  Twenty-five  Senators  voted  for  it, 
making  the  vote  of  the  Legislature  for  the  bill  eighty  to 
two. 

At  the  1911  session  a  constitutional  amendment  was 
submitted  to  the  electors  under  which  the  Legislature 


358  The  bill  (Assembly  Bill  2086)  was  a  Judiciary  Committee 
substitute  for  Assembly  Bills  4,  55  and  352.  As  it  finally  passed 
the  Senate,  the  measure  created  a  State  corporation  department, 
charged  with  supervision  of  investment  companies. 


350  The  Whirlwind  Finish 

could  enact  laws  to  safeguard  the 
WEIGHTS  AND  public  against  dishonest  measuring 
MEASURES.  and  weighing.  At  the  extra  session 

of  the  1911  Legislature,  however, 
the  measure  establishing  uniform  weights  and  measures 
failed  of  passage. 

Such  a  bill  was  introduced  at  the  1913  session,  and, 
although  its  passage  was  delayed  until  the  last  days  of 
the  session,  it  was  finally  passed  without  a  vote  being 
cast  against  it  in  either  House. 

One  of  the  most  important  Progressive  measures  con- 
sidered at  the  1913  session  was  the  so-called  Minimum 
Wage  for  Women  bill  (Assembly 
THE  MINIMUM  Bill  1251).  The  measure  provides 
WAGE  BILL.  for  an  Industrial  Welfare  Commis- 

sion consisting  of  five  members.  It 
is  made  the  duty  of  the  commission  to  ascertain  the 
wages  paid,  the  hours  and  conditions  of  labor  and  em- 
ployment in  the  various  occupations,  trades  and  indus- 
tries in  which  women  and  minors  are  employed,  and  to 
make  investigations  into  the  comfort,  health,  safety  and 
welfare  of  such  women  and  minors. 

If  upon  investigation  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  wages  paid  to  women  and  minors  are  inadequate 
to  supply  the  cost  of  proper  living,  or  that  the  hours  or 
conditions  of  labor  are  prejudicial  to  the  health,  morals 
or  welfare  of  the  workers,  the  commission  may  call  a 
conference  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  representa- 
tives of  employers  and  employees  in  the  occupation  under 
consideration.  This  conference  must,  on  request  of  the 
commission,  report  its  findings,  including: 


The  Whirlwind   Finish  351 

(1)  An  estimate  of  the  minimum  wage  adequate  to 
supply  to  women  and  minors  engaged  in  the  occupation, 
trade   or   industry   in   question,    the   necessary   cost   of 
proper  living  and  to  maintain  the  health  and  welfare  of 
such  women  and  minors. 

(2)  The  number  of  hours  of  work  per  day  in  the 
occupation,  trade  or  industry  in  question,  consistent  with 
the  health  and  welfare  of  such  women  and  minors. 

(3)  The  standard  conditions  of  labor  in  the  occupa- 
tion, trade  or  industry  in  question,  demanded  by  the 
health  and  welfare  of  such  women  and  minors. 

The  commission,  after  a  public  hearing,  has  power 
to  fix: 

(1)  A  minimum  wage  to  be  paid  to  women  and 
minors  engaged  in  any  occupation,  trade  or  industry  in 
this  State,  which  shall  not  be  less  than  a  wage  adequate 
to  supply  to  such  women  and  minors  the  necessary  cost 
of  proper  living  and  to  maintain  the  health  and  welfare 
of  such  women  and  minors. 

(2)  The  maximum  houjs  of  work  consistent  with 
the  health  and  welfare  of  women  and  minors  engaged 
in  any  occupation,  trade  or  industry  in  this  State;  pro- 
vided, that  the  hours  so  fixed  shall  not  be  more  than 
the  maximum  now  or  hereafter  fixed  by  law. 

(3)  The  standard  conditions  of  labor  demanded  by 
the  health  and  welfare  of  the  women  and  minors  en- 
gaged in  any  occupation,  trade  or  industry  in  this  State. 

This  bill  was  strongly  opposed  by  labor  leaders,  as 
well  as  employers,  although  some  labor  leaders  and 
many  employers  supported  it.  The  temper  of  the  Legis- 
lature regarding  it  was  well  expressed  by  Senator 


352  The  Whirlwind  Finish 

Brown,  who  had  introduced  a  similar  bill  in  the  Senate, 
when  he  said  before  the  special  committee  appointed  un- 
der the  Beban  resolution  to  investigate  vice  conditions: 
"If  any  industry  in  California  employing  women  cannot 
pay  its  employees  a  wage  sufficiently  large  to  permit 
them  to  live  decently,  the  State  is  better  off  without  such 
industry." 

The  many-sided  opposition  offered  to  the  bill  pre- 
vented its  final  passage  until  May  7,  five  days  before 
adjournment.  It  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  forty- 
six  to  twelve,  and  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven 
to  seven. 

The  Civil  Service  measure  was  not  enacted  until  the 
day  before  the  Legislature  adjourned.  The  bill359  passed 
was  a  committee  substitute  for  meas- 
CIVIL  ures  introduced  during  the  earlier 

SERVICE  days  of  the  session.  The  measure 

MEASURE.  provides  for  a  State  Civil  Service 

Commission,  empowered  to  classify 
positions  to  be  held  under  State  authority ;  to  hold  exam- 
inations to  determine  the  merit,  efficiency  and  fitness  of 
applicants  for  positions  and  prepare  properly  classified 
eligible  lists  for  applicants  so  examined ;  keep  records  of 
industrial  efficiency  of  State  employees,  etc.  The  act, 
except  in  exempted  cases,  brings  State  employees  under 
civil  service. 

When  the  measure  came  up  for  final  action  in  the 
Senate,  an  amendment  was  offered  which  provided  that 
persons  already  holding  office  should  take  the  Civil  Ser- 
vice examinations  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 

359  Assembly    Bill    2080,    committee    substitute     for    Assembly 
Bills   59  and  502. 


The  Whirlwind  Finish  353 

the  act.  This  amendment  was  rejected,  however,  by  a 
close  vote  of  sixteen  to  eighteen.360 

The  measure  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  fifty- 
seven  to  six,  and  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty-five  to 
ten. 

The  passage  of  the  Young  Direct  Primary  Election 
bill,  providing  for  non-partisan  county  and  township 
elections,  indicates  the  progress 
NON-PARTISAN  made  in  California  toward  non- 
COUNTY  partisanship.  At  the  1909  session, 

ELECTIONS.  a  bill  to  take  the  Judiciary  out  of 

politics  by  making  the  election  of 
Judges  non-partisan,  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  de- 
feated in  the  Assembly  on  narrow  margin.  At  the  1911 
session,  not  only  the  election  of  judicial  officials,  but  of 
school  officials  was  made  non-partisan. 

In  the  Young  bill  this  non-partisanship  in  elections 
is  extended  to  county  and  township  elections.  Not  a 
negative  vote  on  the  bill  was  cast  in  the  Assembly.  In 
the  Senate,  however,  two  members,  Juilliard  and  Wright, 
cast  their  votes  against  it.  As  in  the  case  of  the  great 
majority  of  Progressive  measures  which  were  enacted, 
the  Young  Non-Partisan  Primary  bill  was  not  finally 
passed  until  the  last  hours  of  the  session. 

The  conditions  under  which  the  work  of  the  last 
hours  of  the  session  were  conducted  have  already  been 
described. 

seo  The  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  rejected  was  as 
follows : 

For  the  amendment — Caminettl,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cohn, 
Curtln,  Finn,  Gerdes,  Jones,  Juilliard,  Kehoe,  Larkins,  Owens, 
Regan,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  and  Wright — 16. 

Against  the  amendment — Anderson,  Avey,  Beban,  Birdsall, 
Breed,  Brown,  Bryant,  Butler,  Carr,  Flint,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Lyon, 
Mott,  Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 18. 


CHAPTER   XXIX. 
CONCLUSION — SEEKING  REMEDIES. 

One  of  the  most  important  problems  before  the  1913 
Legislature,  if  not  the  most  important,  was  that  of  the 
Legislature  itself. 

Since  the  political  awakening  in  California  following 
the  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution,  the  public  had  fol- 
lowed the  work  of  the  Legislature  carefully.  Members 
who  at  the  1909  session  had  not  responded  to  public 
opinion  were,  with  but  few  exceptions,  denied  re-election, 
and  did  not  sit  in  the  Legislature  of  1911.  The  admir- 
able work  of  the  1911  session  had  led  the  public  to  ex- 
pect much  of  the  1913  session,  elected  to  carry  on  the 
policies  of  1911.  But  the  1913  session  had  a  more  diffi- 
cult task.  For  the  first  time  in  the  political  history  of 
California,  the  Legislature  was  put  to  the  test  of  con- 
structive work.361  It  was  found  unequal  to  the  task. 

361  There  was  important  difference  between  the  work  of  the 
1911  session  and  that  of  the  session  of  1913.  The  1911  session  to 
a  large  extent  dealt  with  issues  which  had  been  long  before  the 
public.  Corruption  of  the  Australian  ballot,  under  machine  rule, 
for  example,  had  been  resisted  at  every  point.  At  the  1909  ses- 
sion part  restoration  of  the  ballot  to  its  original  simplicity  and 
effectiveness  was  nearly  realized,  a  bill  to  that  end  passing  the 
Senate  and  being  defeated  in  the  Assembly  only  by  a  narrow 
margin.  The  restoration  of  the  ballot  came  at  the  1911  session 
as  a  matter  of  course.  In  the  same  way,  the  taking  of  the 
judiciary  out  of  politics,  fought  for  and  almost  realized  in  1909, 
was  accomplished  in  1911.  At  the  1911  session  a  practical  Direct 
Primary  law  was  fought  for  and  important  progress  made  in  the 
direction  of  the  reform.  The  reform,  without  hampering  restric- 
tions, was  secured  in  1911.  At  the  1911  session  a  constitutional 
amendment  granting  suffrage  to  women  was  submitted  to  the 
electors.  Here  again  was  realized  a  thing  which  had  been  agi- 
tated for  years.  The  same  was  true  of  the  submission  of  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment,  and  partially  true  of  the 
Recall  amendment,  which  with  the  restoration  of  the  powers  of 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies        355 

The  failure  should  not  be  charged  to  the  majority  of  the 
legislators.  The  1913  Legislature,  all  things  considered, 
was  probably  as  representative  and  as  effective  a  Legis- 
lature as  the  State  will  ever  have  under  the  present  legis- 
lative plan.  The  perplexed  members  could  not  under- 
stand their  own  lack  of  accomplishment.  They  knew 
that  something  was  radically  wrong,  but  were  unpre- 
pared to  agree  as  to  what  it  was. 

As  the  lobby  was  the  most  conspicuous  element  in 
opposition,  condemnation  of  the  lobby  was  to  be  ex- 
pected. But  for  the  most  part  the  condemnation  fell 


government  to  the  people  comes  as  a  matter  of  course.  The 
1911  session  even  made  start  toward  the  constructive  work  of 
the  sort,  which  changed  industrial  conditions  are  now  requiring  of 
Legislatures.  A  workable  railroad  regulation  law  was,  for  ex- 
ample, enacted.  But  here  again  was  a  matter  which  had  been 
an  important  issue  at  the  1909  session,  and  the  way  prepared  for 
its  realization.  But  even  so,  an  extra  session  of  the  Legislature 
was  required  before  a  satisfactory  railroad  regulation  law  was 
secured,  and  then  only  after  the  State  Railroad  Commission  had 
made  a  study  of  such  legislation  in  other  States  and  presented 
a  draft  of  the  measure  to  the  Legislature  for  action.  Thus,  one 
great  piece  of  constructive  legislation  credited  to  the  Legislature 
of  1911  was  primarily  the  work  of  the  Railroad  Commission  and 
not  of  the  Legislature.  To  be  sure,  the  1911  Legislature  under- 
took to  deal  with  such  unfamiliar  subjects  as  workmen's  com- 
pensation, conservation  of  the  State's  national  resources,  practical 
regulation  of  the  working  hours  of  women  and  children,  and  the 
like.  Some  progress  was  made,  but  at  once  the  sinister  opposi- 
tion which  hung  upon  the  Legislature  of  1913  was  encountered. 
Progress  was  indeed  made,  but  the  best  of  this  work  was  the 
clearing  of  the  way  for  the  constructive  work  which  was  gen- 
erally recognized  was  to  come  after.  The  Legislature  of  1911,  at 
the  extra  session  in  December  of  that  year,  when  called  upon  to 
pass  a  comprehensive  Conservation  act,  broke  down  as  com- 
pletely as  did  the  1913  Legislature  at  any  point.  Genuine  con- 
structive work  was  required  of  the  1913  Legislature.  And  the 
1913  Legislature  was  as  unprepared  to  meet  the  requirement  as 
the  Legislature  of  1911  had  been  unprepared  to  meet  the  problem 
of  State  Revenue  and  Taxation.  Had  the  1913  Legislature  been 
controlled  by  the  vicious  element  as  in  the  days  of  the  corpo- 
ration-tenderloin machine  rule,  much  of  the  work  of  the  1911 
sessions  would  have  been  undone.  Controlled  as  the  Legislature 
was  by  a  majority  made  up  of  representative  citizens  it  could 
only  hold  what  had  been  gained  by  the  1911  Legislature,  and,  at 
the  close  of  the  session,  put  through,  in  many  cases  with  little 
understanding  of  their  provisions,  measures  intended  to  carry 
forward  the  policies  which  had  governed  the  Legislature  of  1911. 
The  present  State's  legislative  plan  was  on  trial  at  the  1913  ses- 
sion, and  the  plan  was  found  insufficient  for  present-day  con- 
ditions. 


356         Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

upon  the  mere  runners,  watchers  and  claquers  who 
swarmed  through  the  corridors.  The  vice-presidents 
and  general  managers — for  the  most  part  local  chief 
clerks  of  alien  interests — who  directed  the  lobby  cam- 
paign, were  not  counted  as  lobbyists.  These  chief  clerks 
when  they  visited  the  Capital  were  received  with  all  the 
consideration  due  gentlemen  of  their  imposing  titles.  It 
is  not  probable  that  the  measures  introduced  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  the  lobby  responsible  could  have  been 
made  to  reach  them. 

Even  before  the  legislative  recess,  Birdsall  introduced 
an  "anti-lobby"  measure362  requiring  "legislative  counsel 
and  legislative  agents"  retained  "to  promote  or  oppose 
the  passage  of  bills  or  resolutions"  to  register  with  the 
Secretary  of  State  the  fact  of  their  employment  and  ap- 
pearance at  Sacramento.  Employers  of  such  agents  were 
also  required  to  file  statement  of  their  employment.  The 
filing  of  itemized  statement  of  all  expenses  was  also  re- 
quired. This  bill  went  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  The 
committee  did  not  act  upon  it. 

The  most  comprehensive  "anti-lobbying"  bill363  was 
introduced  by  Kehoe  of  Humboldt  at  a  time  late  in  the 
session,  when  the  lobby's  work  and  methods  were  thor- 
oughly understood  and  generally  condemned.  The  meas- 
ure provided  for  registration  of  lobbyists,  filing  of  their 
expense  accounts,  and  the  regulation  of  their  work,  let- 
ting the  full  light  of  publicity  in  upon  them.  Members 


362  Senate    Bill    181.      The    measure    did    not    apply    to    persons 
employed  to  appear  before  committees  or  to  persons  of  any  legis- 
lative   district    who    might    seek    to    influence    the    member    from 
such    district.      The    measure    did    not   get    beyond    committee. 

363  Senate    Bill    1769. 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies        357 

of  both  Houses  were  in  a  mood  to  pass  such  a  bill.  The 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee  recommended  its  passage. 
But  in  the  rush  of  the  closing  days  of  the  session,  the 
measure  was  not  brought  to  vote.  It  had,  of  course, 
the  opposition  of  the  lobby,  was  tagged  as  a  "freak  bill," 
and  as  a  "freak  bill"  denounced.  That  the  measure 
would  have  reached  the  source  of  objectionable  lobbying 
is  very  much  to  be  doubted.  That  full  publicity  of  the 
activities  of  those  smaller  agents  whom  it  would  have 
reached  would  have  been  most  advantageous  to  the  peo- 
ple of  California  will  not  be  seriously  disputed. 

The  unpreparedness  of  the  Legislature  for  its  work 
was  apparent  from  the  beginning  of  the  consideration  of 
the  Revenue  and  Taxation  measure.  Other  States,  note- 
ably  Wisconsin,  have  met  this  difficulty  in  some  degree  at 
least,  by  establishing  a  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  for 
the  collection  of  data  bearing  upon  legislation,  for  the 
use  not  only  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  but  of 
any  person  who  may  make  application.364 

864  John  Bryce,  author  of  "The  American  Commonwealth," 
says  of  the  Legislative  Bureau  plan:  "This  appears  to  me  a 
proposal  of  the  highest  value.  The  age  in  which  we  live  is  an 
age  in  which  more  and  more  is  demanded  of  Legislatures.  The 
people  of  this  country  and  the  people  of  every  free  country  are 
expecting  more  from  their  Legislatures  than  they  did  formerly. 
They  are  asking  the  government,  both  the  central  government 
and  their  local  governments,  to  undertake  many  functions  which 
were  not  attempted  before,  and  the  complex  nature  of  our  civil- 
ization makes  the  discharge  of  these-  functions  more  difficult  than 
ever  it  was  before.  There  is  more  intricacy  and  more  detail  in 
statutes,  and  the  economic  and  special  problems  with  which 
legislation  now  endeavors  to  deal,  become  more  difficult.  There 
are  raised  more  questions  of  economic  and  legal  principle  upon 
which  it  is  more  difficult  to  form  a  sound  opinion  than  happened 
in  a  previous  age  of  the  world. 

"It  appears,  therefore,  to  be  more  than  ever  necessary  to 
accumulate  all  data  that  can  possibly  help  us  in  the  framing  of 
good  legislation.  The  most  important  and  obviously  necessary 
of  those  data  are  such  as  are  furnished  by  the  experience  of  the 
country  itself.  It  is  necessary  to  know  what  are  the  evils  that 
exist,  to  consider  and  weigh  different  remedies  that  are  pro- 
posed for  those  evils,  and  to  consider  how  far  legislation  can 


358         Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

Assemblyman  W.  C.  Clark  of  Alameda  county  spent 
two  years  in  collecting  data  on  the  Legislative  Reference 
Bureau  system.  Using  his  findings  as  a  basis,  he  drew 
a  measure  to  establish  such  a  bureau  for  California. 
This  bill  was  introduced  by  himself  in  the  Assembly  and 
by  Kehoe  in  the  Senate.365 

Unfortunately,  the  measure  met  with  the  opposition 
of  the  State  Librarian,  who  contended  that  the  functions 
of  a  State  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  are  identical 
with  the  functions  of  the  State  library  and  that  any 
appropriation  for  such  a  bureau  might  properly  and 
should  logically  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  State 
library  for  strengthening  that  part  of  its  work  which 
is  already  being  devoted  to  legislative  matters.366  This 
opposition  was  supported  by  the  Board  of  State  Library 
Trustees.  The  friction  resulting  threatened  for  a  time 

deal  with  them.  One  can  hardly  overestimate  the  value  of 
knowing  not  only  what  has  been  done  in  other  countries,  but  also 
of  knowing  how  the  experiments  other  countries  have  tried  are 
working  out." 

365  Assembly  Bill  970  and  Senate  Bill  951.  Other  measures 
touching  upon  the  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  plan  were 
Senate  Bill  872  and  Assembly  Bill  994,  identical  measures,  intro- 
duced by  Mott  in  the  Senate  and  by  Gates  in  the  Assembly; 
Senate  Bill  1490  (Hewitt),  and  Assembly  Bill  1687  (Benedict), 
identical  measures. 

see  Indiana,  where  the  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  was  at 
first  conducted  under  the  State  Library,  has  since  made  the  de- 
partment a  separate  institution.  Those  who  have  made  study 
of  the  subject  are  generally  agreed  that  Library  and  Bureau  are 
more  satisfactorily  conducted  separately.  Of  the  Indiana  inci- 
dent, R.  A.  Campbell,  Secretary  of  the  "Wisconsin  State  Board  of 
Public  Affairs,  says:  "When  you  consider  the  fact  that  the  Leg- 
islative Reference  Department  of  Indiana  was  one  of  the  most 
successful  of  the  departments  operated  under  the  State  Library, 
and  when  you  consider  that  Mr.  Lapp  was  practically  given  a 
free  hand  in  all  his  work;  and  then  note  that  his  department  is 
made  a  separate  institution,  you  are  compelled  to  conclude  that 
any  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  operating  under  a  State  Li- 
brary, where  conditions  are  unfavorable,  is  absolutely  hopeless. 
If  a  tactful,  well-experienced  man  cannot  succeed  in  such  a  de- 
partment under  the  State  Library,  it  is  pretty  positive  proof  that 
the  system  is  wrong,  and  that  the  department  should  be  sepa- 
rate and  distinct." 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies         359 

the  passage  of  any  Legislative  Reference  Bureau 
measure  at  all.  The  measure  was  actually  defeated 367 
when  it  first  came  up  for  passage  in  the  Assembly,  but 
reconsideration  was  secured  in  the  Assembly,  and,  after 
being  repeatedly  amended,  the  measure  passed  both 
Houses  and  became  a  law. 

But  with  these  attempts  to  prevent  unwarranted  out- 
side interference  with  the  Legislature,  and  to  equip  the 
members  so  far  as  possible  for  their  work,  came  con- 
viction that  something  is  radically  wrong  with  the  plan 
under  which  the  Legislature  works.  The  time  allowed 
for  consideration  of  the  many  measures  presented,  for 
example,  was  found  to  be  insufficient,  although  the 
session  lasted  longer  than  that  of  any  Legislature  that 
had  convened  in  California  in  a  generation. 

Up  to  1911  legislative  sessions  covered  from  sixty- 
five  to  seventy-five  days.  Rarely  did  the  term  exceed  the 
latter  figure.  The  1913  Legislature  was  in  session 
ninety-four  days,  exclusive  of  the  constitutional  recess. 
And  even  with  this  prolonged  session  the  members 
found  it  utterly  impossible  to  give  adequate  consideration 
to  the  work  before  it.  Any  one  of  the  subjects  con- 
sidered, Workmen's  Compensation,  Mothers'  Pensions, 


367  The  vote  by  which  Clark's  Legislative  Reference  Bureau 
bill  was  defeated  in  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Bagby,  Bohnett,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chandler, 
Clark,  Wm.  C.;  Collins,  Cram,  Ellis,  Ferguson,  Finnegan,  Fish,  Gab- 
bert,  Guiberson,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnston,  T.  D.;  Johnstone,  W.  A.; 
Kuck,  McDonald,  Mouser,  Roberts,  Scott,  Shannon,  Slater,  Smith, 
Sutherland,  Tulloch,  Weisel,  White,  and  Young — 32. 

Against  the  bill — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict,  Bowman, 
Bradford,  Brown,  Bush,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Dower,  Bmmons,  Far- 
well,  Ford,  Gelder,  Green,  Inman,  Killingsworth,  Kingsley,  Libby, 
Murray,  Nolan,  Peairs,  Polsley,  Richardson,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Shar- 
tel,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck,  Weldon,  and  Woodley — 31. 

Bohnett  changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no  for  the  purpose  of  se- 
curing reconsideration. 


360        Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

Rural  Credits,  Weights  and  Measures,  Hours  of  Labor, 
Immigration,  Minimum  Wage  for  Women,  Redlight 
Abatement,  "Blue  Sky"  law,  Civil  Service,  Insurance 
Regulation,  Conservation  of  Natural  Resources,  Pipe 
Line  Control,  Dredge  Mining,  Electric  Railroad  De- 
velopment, Waterfront  Conservation  and  Control,  Tor- 
rens  Land  Legislation,  Revenue  and  Taxation,  and 
scores  of  other  problems  would  take  experts  months,  if 
not  years,  to  solve.  And  this  California  Legislature  of 
well-intentioned  but  untried,  unprepared  men,  was  called 
upon  to  deal  with  these  many  complicated  problems, 
all  in  less  than  one  hundred  days. 

In  addition,  during  those  less  than  one  hundred  days, 
the  Legislature  was  required  to  provide  for  the  State's 
maintenance  during  the  two  years  to  come.  This  in- 
volved an  expenditure  of  over  $20,000,000. 

Incidentally,  it  was  called  upon  to  consider  measures 
for  the  government  of  3,000,000  people.  During  the 
session  3,922  prospective  laws  were  introduced,  1,783  in 
the  Senate  and  2,139  in  the  Assembly,  in  addition  to 
proposed  constitutional  amendments  and  joint  and  con- 
current resolutions.  The  mere  reading  of  this  mass  of 
matter  intelligently  would  have  required  months  of  time. 
The  members  of  the  1913  session  were,  in  addition  to 
numerous  other  duties  supposed  not  only  to  read  these 
bills  but  to  analyze  them  in  less  than  100  days. 

And  for  this  work  no  adequate  compensation  was 
provided. 

A  public  service  corporation  with  like  tasks  to  meet, 
would  employ  experts,  pay  them  anywhere  from  $5,000 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies         361 

to  $10,000  a  year  for  their  services,  and  give  them 
months  and  even  years  in  which  to  do  their  work. 

California,  up  to  1909,  allowed  its  legislators  $8  a 
day  each  for  their  services,  and  gave  them  sixty  days 
to  complete  their  work,  $480  for  the  session.  If  the 
task  wasn't  done  in  sixty  days,  the  pay  stopped,  and  the 
legislator  was  required  to  contribute  his  services. 

Beginning  with  1909,  the  legislators  have  been  paid 
each  $1000  for  the  session's  work.868 

Out  of  this  $1000  the  legislator  is  supposed  to  pay 
his  campaign  expenses,  and  maintain  himself  decently 
at  the  State  Capital  during  the  session  of  from  sixty- 
five  to  ninety-four  days.  The  Senators  and  Assembly- 
men are  not  so  well  compensated  as  the  better-paid 
newspaper  reporters  who  attend  the  sessions.  The 
expense  bill  of  a  corporation  lobbyist  will  run  larger 
than  the  entire  pay  of  a  legislator.  Unless  a  member 
has  private  means,  or  is  willing  to  run  in  debt  for  the 
privilege  of  serving  his  State  in  the  Legislature,  he 
must  resort  to  what  appears  to  the  average  observer  to 
be  pretty  small  business,  to  maintain  himself  at  the 
Capital. 

It  is  notorious  that  some  members  put  their  relatives 
on  the  legislative  pay-roll.  Such  appointees,  in  many 
cases,  draw  salaries  but  do  very  little  work.  At  the 
1909  session  a  Senator  from  Los  Angeles  actually  had 
his  wife  on  the  pay-roll  as  a  porter.  Members  who  are 
attorneys  accept — and  even  solicit — positions  as  attorneys 

sea  Inadequate  as  this  compensation  is,  it  is  better  than  the 
great  majority  of  States  allow,  and  all  things  considered,  as  much 
as  is  paid  by  any  State.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connec- 
tion that  complaint  of  the  ineffectiveness  of  Legislatures  is  be- 
ginning to  be  heard  from  every  part  of  the  country. 


362         Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

for  commissions  for  which  they  draw  from  the  State 
from  $2,500  to  $3,600  a  year  in  addition  to  their  $1,000 
compensation  as  legislators.  Under  machine  rule,  a 
favorite  method  of  compensating-  members  was  by  their 
employment  on  legislative  holdover  committees,  for  all 
of  which  the  State  paid.  Then  again,  public  service 
corporations  and  other  interests  seeking  special  privi- 
leges of  the  Legislature,  employ  men  at  generous  sal- 
aries or  retainers,  who  are  elected  to  the  Legislature, 
and  with  the  scanty  allowance  given  them  by  the  State, 
in  addition  to  the  usually  generous  salary  paid  by  the 
corporation,  manage  to  get  on  very  well.869  But  few 
will  contend  that  such  an  arrangement  makes  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  State. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  State  needs  all  of  the  time 
of  those  selected  to  serve  it  in  the  Legislature.  Instance 
after  instance  demonstrates  that  it  would  be  money  into 
the  pockets  of  The  People  of  California  if  they  allowed 
their  Senators  and  Assemblymen  reasonable  compensa- 
tion, and  denied  them  the  privilege  of  drawing  addi- 
tional salary  from  the  State,  a  corporation,  or  special- 
privilege-seeking  interest.  The  whole  miserable  business 
of  indirect  compensation  of  legislators  comes  from  the 
fact  that  the  State  does  not  provide  adequate  pay  for 
the  work  which  they  are  expected  to  do. 

The  "whirlwind  finish"  of  the  -1913  Legislature 
brought  another  fact  of  the  present  legislative  system 
squarely  before  the  members  who  were  laboring  to 
bring  the  session  to  satisfactory  close:  namely,  the 

369  Nelson,  of  Humboldt,  introduced  a  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
1128)  to  meet  this  condition.  The  measure  passed  the  Assembly, 
but  the  Senate  failed  to  act  upon  it. 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies         363 

checks  of  a  two-House  Legislature  do  not  check,  nor 
do  the  balances  balance. 

The  theory  upon  which  the  two-House  Legislature 
is  based  is  that  the  two  Houses,  acting  independently, 
furnish  checks  upon  each  other  which  will  prevent  the 
enactment  of  undesirable  laws. 

The  writer  can  recall  many  good  measures  which 
have  been  "checked"  by  the  two-House  system. 

When  a  good  bill  gets  through  either  House  a  swarm 
of  lobbyists  invade  Sacramento  to  block  its  passage 
in  the  second. 

When  an  undesirable  measure  gets  through  either 
House,  its  encouraged  supporters  redouble  their  efforts 
to  force  its  passage  in  the  other.  There  are  cases  on 
record,  where,  with  a  majority  of  both  Houses  in  active 
opposition  to  the  passage  of  a  bill,  it  has  by  crafty 
manipulation  been  passed  and  sent  to  the  Governor  for 
his  approval.370 

When  a  measure  passes  one  House,  the  second 
House,  unless  there  be  some  powerful  interest  opposed 
to  its  passage,  is  prone  to  accept  it  on  faith.  During 
the  last  hours  of  the  1913  session  the  Assembly  passed 
Senate  bills,  and  the  Senate  passed  Assembly  bills,  as 
fast  as  clerks  could  call  the  roll.  The  important  Con- 
servation bill,  for  example,  was  under  consideration  in 
the  Assembly  from  January  23  until  May  3.  The  Senate 
held  it  for  eight  days,  before  passing  it.  Had  there  not 
been  powerful  and  ably  represented  interests  opposed 


370  A  notable  example  of  this  was  the  passage  of  the  so-called 
Change  of  Venue  bill  at  the  1909  session.  See  "Story  of  the 
California  Legislature  of  1909,"  page  168. 


364        Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

to  this  bill,  the  Senate  would  have  passed  it  as  it  had 
left  the  Assembly — on  faith. 

The  Senate  from  January  28  until  April  28 — sixty 
days,  exclusive  of  the  Legislative  recess — had  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act  before  it.  But  the  As- 
sembly passed  the  measure  after  having  it  eleven  days. 
What  the  Senate  had  required  sixty  days  to  do,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  comparative  calm,  the  Assembly  did 
in  eleven  days,  during  a  period  of  overstrain  and  ex- 
citement which  precluded  careful  consideration  of  this 
measure,  or  any  other  measure. 

If  ever  the  check  of  one  House  upon  the  other 
prevented  hasty  or  ill-considered  action,  that  day  has 
passed.  Deliberative  consideration  of  measures  by  both 
Houses,  whatever  it  may  once  have  been,  has  for  twenty 
years  at  least,  in  California,  been  a  farce. 

These  facts  forced  disinterested  observers  of  the  sit- 
uation to  the  following  conclusions: 

(1)  That  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  State's 
business,  the  State  requires  all  the  time  of  its  legislators. 

(2)  That  legislators  must,  if  they  are  to  do  their 
work  properly,  be  adequately  compensated. 

(3)  That   a   two-House    Legislature    is   unwieldly, 
cumbersome,  ineffective,  liable  to  break  down  when  put 
to  the  test.371 


371  "An  ideal  Legislature,"  said  one  observer  of  the  Sacramento 
situation,  late  in  April,  "would  consist  of  a  single  House,  made 
up  of  not  more  than  forty  members,  paid  at  least  $5,000  a  year 
each  for  their  services,  who  should  devote  all  their  time  to  the 
State,  during  the  periods  between  sessions  dividing  into  commit- 
tees or  commissions,  each  group  to  take  up  investigation  of 
some  problem  with  which  the  Legislature  might  be  called  upon  to 
deal." 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  Governor 
Hodges,  of  Kansas,  strongly  advocates  such  a  plan.  A  recent 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies         365 

Members  who  had  served  in  former  sessions  enter- 
tained these  ideas  even  before  the  1913  Legislature  con- 
vened. The  opinion  found  expression  in  various  pro- 
posed constitutional  amendments,  making  more  or  less 
radical  changes  in  the  legislative  plan.  Smith  of  Ala- 
meda,  for  example,  introduced  an  amendment  to  increase 
the  pay  of  the  members  from  $1,000  to  $2,000  for  the 
session.372  Farwell  of  Los  Angeles  went  a  step  further, 
by  proposing  an  amendment  putting  the  Legislature  on 
a  one-House  basis.373 

None  of  the  proposed  changes  of  which  the  two 
noted  are  typical,  met  the  situation.  Their  authors  did 
not  claim  that  for  them,  but  the  introduction  of  such 
measures  did  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  weak  points 
of  the  legislative  system  were  being  observed  and  that 
remedies  were  being  sought  for. 


press  dispatch  quotes  him  as  urging  the  following  disadvantages 
over  the  two-house  system: 

"The  bicameral  Legislature  remains  a  heavy  and  complicated 
mechanism,  yielding  readily  enough  to  the  political  expert,  but 
blocking  at  every  turn  the  attempts  of  the  people  to  work  It. 

"There  is  no  way  whereby  the  public  can  single  out  a  particu- 
lar member  and  say,  'You  personally  are  to  blame.' 

"As  for  being  a  deliberative  body,  I  have  yet  to  see  a  Legis- 
lature that  could  be  so  classed. 

"Powerful  private  interests  find  their  best  shelter  behind  a 
multiplicity  of  barriers. 

"About  the  only  purpose  I  have  been  able  to  see  for  the  two- 
house  system  is  that  it  enables  the  legislator  to  fool  his  con- 
stituents." 

Of   the  one -house    system,    Governor   Hodges   says: 

"In  my  judgment,  such  a  Legislature  as  I  am  advocating  would 
give  us  fewer  but  better  laws;  it  would  give  us  laws  that  need 
less  interpretation  from  the  courts  and  accordingly  give  us  less 
litigation.  It  would  be  representative." 

872  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  22.  The  amend- 
ment was  adopted  in  the  Assembly  (May  5).  It  failed  of  adop- 
tion in  the  Senate. 

373  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  57.  This  pro- 
posed amendment  provided  for  a  Senate  of  eighty  members  to  be 
elected  for  four-year  terms.  Neither  House  acted  upon  it. 


366        Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies 

Late  in  April,  when  the  session's  work  was  fast 
getting  into  an  all  but  hopeless  tangle,  eight  Senators 
and  eight  Assemblymen  374  joined  in  the  introduction  of 
the  most  comprehensive  plan  of  change  in  the  legislative 
system  that  had  been  offered. 

The  amendment  provided  for  a  Legislature  of  a 
single  House  to  be  known  as  the  Senate.  The  members 
were  to  be  forty  in  number,  elected  to  serve  for  four- 
year  terms.  Each  member  was  to  be  allowed  $5,000  as 
compensation  for  the  biennial  session.  It  was  provided 
that  each  regular  session  should  continue  for  a  period  of 
one  year. 

Probably  none  of  those  who  joined  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  amendment  expected  it  to  be  adopted.  But 
its  introduction  brought  the  necessity  of  an  effective 
legislative  body  squarely  before  the  Legislature  and  the 
State.  The  amendment  came  to  vote  in  each  House, 
and  although  it  failed  to  secure  the  necessary  two-thirds 
vote  for  adoption  in  either  body,  the  vote  that  was  given 
it  was  a  surprise.  In  each  House,  more  voted  for  the 
change  than  voted  against  it.  In  the  Assembly  thirty- 
seven  members  voted  for  the  proposed  change  and  thirty 
against  it.375  In  the  Senate  the  vote  was  nineteen  for 

374  The    Senators    were    Boynton,    Carr,    Gates    and   Avey,    Pro- 
gressives, and  Cartwright,  Campbell,  Owens  and  Cohn,  Democrats. 
The  Assemblymen  were  Sutherland,   Bohnett,   Benedict  and   Clark, 
Progressives,    and    Bagby,    Weldon,    Klllingsworth    and    Guiberson, 
Democrats.     The   proposed  amendment  was  No.   91   In  the  Assem- 
bly and  No.  73  in   the  Senate   series. 

375  The  vote  on   the  amendment  in  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  proposed  change — Alexander,  Ambrose,  Beck,  Benedict, 
Bloodgood,  Bohnett,  Bush,  Canepa,  Cram,  Ellis,  Farwell,  Ford, 
Gabbert,  Gates,  Guiberson,  Hayes,  Inman,  Johnston,  T.  D. ;  John- 
stone,  W.  A.;  Kuck,  Moorhouse,  Morgenstern,  Palmer,  Peairs, 
Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  Shannon,  Smith,  Strine,  Stuckenbruck, 
Walsh,  Weldon,  White,  Woodley,  Wyllie,  and  Young— 37. 

Against  the  proposed  change — Bagby,  Bradford,  Brown,  Byrnes, 
Chandler,  Clarke,  Geo.  A.;  Dower,  Emmons,  Ferguson,  Finnegan, 


Conclusion — Seeking  Remedies         367 

it  and  fifteen  against.376  Thus  out  of  a  Legislature  of 
120  members,  fifty-six  went  on  record  as  favoring  a 
one-House  Legislature  to  consist  of  forty  adequately 
compensated  members,  while  forty-five  opposed.  Nine- 
teen members  did  not  vote. 

But  whatever  may  be  said  for  or  against  the  legis- 
lative plan  presented  in  this  amendment,  the  fact  remains 
that  the  Legislature  as  organized  under  the  present 
plan  has  at  the  test  proven  cumbersome  and  inadequate. 
That  radical  changes  are  necessary,  few  if  any  in  touch 
with  the  situation  will  dispute.  The  ability  of  The 
People  of  California  for  self-government,  may  be  largely 
determined  by  their  ability  or  inability  to  meet  this  issue. 


Fish,  Gelder,  Guill,  Hinkle,  Johnson,  Geo.  H. ;  Judson,  Kingsley, 
Libby,  McDonald,  Mouser,  Murray,  Nelson,  Polsley,  Richardson, 
Roberts,  Simpson,  Slater,  Sutherland,  Tulloch,  and  Weisel — 30. 

3T6  The  vote  on  the  amendment  in  the  Senate  was: 

For  the  proposed  change — Anderson,  Avey,  Benson,  Boynton, 

Breed,  Bryant,  Campbell,  Cohn,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Jones, 

Kehoe,  Larkins,  Lyon,  Regan,  Rush,  and  Shanahan — 19. 

Against  the  proposed  change — Beban,  Birdsall,  Brown,  Cami- 

netti,     Cogswell,    Curtin,    Flint,    Grant,    Juilliard,    Mott,     Sanford, 

Strobridge,    Thompson,    Tyrrell,   and   Wright — 15. 


APPENDIX. 


RESOLUTIONS  OF  PROTEST  OF  PANAMA- 
PACIFIC  EXPOSITION  COMPANY. 
(Referred  to  on  Page  254.) 

Whereas,  The  State  of  California,  at  its  urgent  solicita- 
tion, was  selected  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
through  the  medium  of  the  Panama-Pacific  International 
Exposition  to  act,  in  behalf  of  the  Government,  as  the  host 
for  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  all  peoples  who  may 
so  desire  to  join  with  the  United  States  in  celebrating  the 
opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  by  participating  in  the  uni- 
versal exposition  of  nineteen  fifteen;  and, 

Whereas,  In  pursuance  of  this  Act  of  Congress  so  passed 
at  the  urgent  request  of  the  State  of  California  and  its 
Legislature,  the  President  of  the  United  States  invited  all 
nations  and  all  peoples  without  regard  to  race,  creed,  politi- 
cal system  or  social  development  to  take  part  in  the  cele- 
bration of  the  opening  of  the  great  international  highway; 
and, 

Whereas,  In  accepting  this  trust  at  the  hands  of  the 
people  and  government  of  the  United  States  and  in  special 
behalf  of  the  State  of  California,  the  Exposition  has  been 
seriously  requested  and  has  solemnly  agreed  to  provide 
every  facility  and  to  offer  every  encouragement  that  physical 
preparation  can  afford  or  the  broadest  spirit  of  universal 
fellowship  suggest,  and  has  intended  and  still  intends  so  to 
do  in  a  manner  responsive  to  the  invitation  of  the  United 
States  and  to  the  sentiment  of  universal  brotherhood  that 
this  celebration  is  intended  to  promote;  and, 

Whereas,  Any  action  upon  the  part  of  the  people  of 
California  through  its  Legislature  or  otherwise,  calculated 
to  lessen  the  interest  of  all  nations  and  peoples  in  the  suc- 
cess of  this  celebration,  will  negative  and  nullify  the  implied 
and  expressed  covenants  of  the  State  of  California;  there- 
fore, be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Panama- 
Pacific  International  Exposition,  that  any  action  on  the  part 
of  the  Legislature  of  California  that  shall  be  regarded  by 
any  foreign  country  or  government  as  offensive  to  their 
pride  as  a  people  or  their  honor  as  a  nation,  must  and  will 
challenge  the  good  faith  of  the  commonwealth  of  California. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  deliberate  and  unqualified  con- 
viction of  this  board  that  by  accepting  this  great  trust  for 
the  Nation,  rendered  of  deep  international  dignity  and 
import  by  the  request  of  the  American  Government,  to  all 


nations  and  all  people  without  exception,  to  share  with  our 
Nation  the  gratification  and  pride  all  patriotic  Amer- 
icans feel  in  the  tremendous  gift  of  the  Panama  Canal  to 
the  world,  with  its  immeasurable  commercial  and  civilizing 
advantages,  the  State  of  California  unquestionably  pledged 
to  all  participants  equal  opportunity  and  courtesy  and  in- 
discriminating  welcome  and  hospitality. 

Resolved,  further,  That  we,  as  a  board  of  directors, 
deeply  impressed  with  the  responsibility  we  have  assumed 
on  behalf  of  the  State  of  California,  emphatically  protest 
against  the  passage  of  any  measures  in  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  that  are  in  any  wise  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
obligation  incurred  by  this  State  at  the  time  it  assumed  the 
responsibility  conferred  upon  it  by  Act  of  Congress. 

Resolved,  further,  That  the  President  of  this  Exposition 
be  authorized  and  instructed  to  sign  and  the  secretary  of  the 
company  to  place  the  seal  of  the  corporation  upon  these 
resolutions,  and  to  suitably  engross  and  copy  the  same  and 
transmit  them  to  each  house  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  California,  with  the  request  that  they  be  printed  in  the 
Journal  thereof;  and  such  other  bodies  or  persons  as  in 
the  opinion  of  the  president  it  shall  be  deemed  advisable  to 
do,  thereby  confirming  similar  previous  acts  by  this  board 
and  the  representations  of  committees  of  this  board  be- 
fore the  Legislature  at  Sacramento,  as  well  as  official  state- 
ments previously  given  to  the  press  and  public. 

Please  transmit  above  to  Governor  Johnson,  also  to 
both  houses  of  Legislature,  informing  them  that  engrossed 
and  signed  copies  will  follow. 

CHARLES  C.  MOORE,  President. 
RUDOLPH  J.  TAUSSIG,  Secretary. 


GOVERNOR  JOHNSON'S  REPLY  TO  SECRE- 
TARY BRYAN. 
(Referred  to  on  Page  273.) 

Hon.  William  J.  Bryan,  Secretary  of  State,  Washington, 
D.  C: 

Your  very  courteous  telegram  relating  to  the  alien  land 
bill  reached  me  late  Sunday  night.  I  take  it  from  your  con- 
versations and  your  request  made  to  me  to  withhold  execu- 
tive action  until  opportunity  was  accorded  for  the  presen- 
tation of  suggestions  from  the  Federal  Government,  that 
your  telegram  embodies  what  it  was  your  wish  and  the 
wish  of  the  President  to  say  to  us  before  final  action. 

In  this  response  it  is  my  design  most  respectfully  to  pre- 


Ill 


sent  the  situation  from  our  standpoint,  and  the  views  that 
actuated  our  Legislature  in  passing  the  bill,  and  that  impel 
me  to  sanction  it. 

For  many  years,  a  very  grave  problem,  little  understood 
in  the  East,  has  confronted  California;  a  problem  the  seri- 
ousness of  which  has  been  recognized  by  statesmen  in  our 
Nation,  and  has  been  viewed  with  apprehension  by  the 
people  of  this  State.  When  the  present  Constitution  of 
California  was  adopted  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  it  con- 
tained the  following  declaration:  "The  presence  of  foreign- 
ers ineligible  to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States  is 
declared  to  be  dangerous  to  the  well-being  of  the  State,  and 
the  Legislature  shall  discourage  their  immigration  by  all 
means  within  its  power." 

Of  late  years,  our  problem  from  another  angle  has  be- 
come acute,  and  the  agitation  has  been  continuous  in  the 
last  decade  in  reference  to  our  agricultural  lands,  until 
finally  affirmative  action  in  an  attempted  solution  became 
imperative.  This  attempted  solution  is  found  in  the  action 
of  our  Legislature  in  the  passage  of  an  alien  land  bill.  In 
the  phraseology  of  this  bill,  in  those  whom  it  affects,  in  its 
scope  and  in  its  purpose,  we  believe  we  are  within  our  legal 
and  our  moral  right,  and  that  we  are  doing  only  what  is 
imperatively  demanded  for  the  protection  and  preservation 
of  our  State.  In  this  enactment  we  have  kept  ever  in  mind 
our  national  good  faith  as  evidenced  by  existing  treaties, 
and  our  desire  and  anxiety  have  been  to  act  only  in  such 
fashion  as  would  commend  us  to  our  sister  States  and 
would  justify  us  to  our  fellow  countrymen. 

The  objections  to  our  bill  are  based,  first,  upon  the 
treaty  obligations  of  the  Nation;  and,  secondly,  upon  the 
assertion  that  our  act  is  offensive  and  discriminatory.  The 
protest  to  our  measure,  as  your  telegram  states,  comes  from 
the  representative  of  Japan.  The  bill  that  is  now  before 
me,  as  you  know,  provides  substantially  in  its  first  section 
that  all  aliens  eligible  to  citizenship  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  may  acquire  real  property  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  the  second  section 
provides  that  all  aliens  other  than  those  mentioned  in  the 
first  section,  may  acquire  real  property  in  the  manner  and 
to  the  extent  and  for  the  purposes  prescribed  by  any  treaty 
now  existing  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
and  the  nation  or  country  of  which  such  aliens  are  citizens 
or  subjects,  and  may,  in  addition,  lease  for  a  period  of 
three  years  lands  for  agricultural  purposes.  Thus,  we  have 
made  existing  treaties  a  part  of  our  law,  and  thus  have  we 
preserved  every  right  that  any  foreign  nation,  by  interna- 
tional contract,  has  insisted  upon  preserving  with  our  Na- 


IV 


tional  Government.  The  treaty  of  1911  with  Japan,  in  ref- 
erence to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  each  country,  pro- 
vides that  they  shall  have  liberty  to  own,  or  lease,  or 
occupy  houses,  manufactories,  warehouses  and  shops;  to 
employ  agents  of  their  choice;  to  lease  land  for  residential 
and  commercial  purposes  and  generally  to  do  anything  inci- 
dent to  or  necessary  for  trade  upon  the  same  terms  as 
native  citizens  or  subjects,  submitting  themselves  to  the 
laws  and  regulations  there  established.  We  assume  that 
the  right  of  Japanese  to  own  real  property  for  the  purposes 
described  is  absolute  in  our  State,  and  we  seek  to  deal  only 
with  our  agricultural  lands.  We  embody  the  treaty  in  our 
law  and  we  add  to  it  permission  to  lease  our  agricultural 
lands,  for  the  period  of  three  years. 

Where  such  extraordinary  care  has  been  exercised  to 
preserve  honor  and  good  faith,  in  the  very  words  of  the 
contract  made  by  the  protesting  nation  with  our  own,  and 
to  do  more  by  authorizing  leases  of  agricultural  lands,  it 
would  seem  that  we  ought  not  to  be  open  to  any  accusa- 
tion of  violation  of  treaty  rights,  or  desire  to  entrench 
upon  that  which  belongs  alone  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment, or  which  might  become  a  matter  of  international 
policy. 

By  the  law  adopted  we  offer  no  offense;  we  make  no 
discrimination.  The  offense  and  discrimination  are  con- 
tained, it  is  claimed,  in  the  use  of  the  words  "eligible  to 
citizenship,"  and  in  making  a  distinction  between  those 
who  are  eligible  to  citizenship  and  those  who  are  not.  We 
do  not  mention  the  Japanese  or  any  particular  race.  The 
Constitution  of  California  in  1879  made  its  distinction,  and 
there  never  has  been  protest  or  objection.  The  naturaliza- 
tion laws  of  the  United  States,  long  since,  without  demur 
from  any  nation,  determined  who  were  and  who  were  not 
eligible  to  citizenship.  If  invidious  discriminations  ever 
were  made  in  this  regard,  the  United  States  made  it  when 
the  United  States  declared  who  were  and  who  were  not 
eligible  to  citizenship,  and  when  we  but  follow  and  depend 
upon  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  their  determi- 
nation as  to  eligibility  to  citizenship,  we  cannot  be  accused 
of  indulging  in  invidious  discrimination.  May  I  venture  to 
call  to  your  attention  the  immigration  law  now  pending  in 
Congress,  which  passed  both  houses  of  the  last  Congress, 
where  apparently  certain  classes,  who  shall  be  excluded  from 
our  country  are  described  as  "persons  who  cannot  become 
eligible  under  existing  laws  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States." 

At  this  very  moment,  the  national  legislature,  without 
protest  or  objection — indeed  it  is  published  in  California 


by  express  consent — is  using  the  terms  that  are  claimed  in 
California's  law  to  be  offensive  and  discriminatory. 

At  least  three  States  in  the  Union  have,  in  the  past, 
enacted  laws  similar  to  the  contemplated  law  of  California, 
and  the  enactments  of  those  other  States  have  been  with- 
out objection  or  protest.  That  the  protest  is  now  made  in 
respect  to  California  but  emphasizes  the  acuteness  of  the 
problem  confronting  California,  and  demonstrates  that  Cali- 
fornia is  differently  viewed  than  other  States  of  the  Union, 
and  that  if  discrimination  exists  it  is  discrimination  against 
California.  We  insist  that  justly  no  offense  can  be  taken  by 
any  nation  to  this  law,  and  more  particularly  does  this  seem 
to  us  clear  in  the  instance  of  a  nation  like  Japan,  that  by  its 
own  law,  prevents  acquisition  of  land  by  aliens.  It  is  most 
respectfully  submitted  that,  after  all,  the  question  is  not 
whether  any  offense  has  been  taken,  but  whether  justly  it 
should  be  taken.  I  voice,  I  think,  the  sentiment  of  the 
majority  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  when  I  say  that 
if  it  had  been  believed  that  offense  could  justly  be  taken  by 
any  nation  to  the  proposed  law,  that  law  would  not  have 
been  enacted. 

We  of  California  believe  firmly  that  in  our  legislative 
dealings  with  this  alien  land  question,  we  have  violated 
absolutely  no  treaty  rights;  we  have  shown  no  shadow  of 
discrimination;  we  have  given  to  no  nation  the  right  to 
be  justified  in  taking  offense.  So  believing — with  a  strong 
reliance  on  the  justice  and  the  righteousness  of  our  cause, 
and  with  due  deference  and  courtesy  and  with  proper  con- 
sideration for  the  feelings  and  the  views  of  others — we  had 
hoped  the  authorities  at  Washington  would  have  seen  the 
question  as  we  in  this  State  have  been  forced  to  see  it — as 
we  must  see  it  or  be  blind. 

And  so,  with  all  respect  and  courtesy,  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia feels  it  its  bounden  duty  to  its  citizens  to  do  that 
which  the  interests  of  its  people  demand;  that  which  the 
conscience  of  its  people  approve;  that  which  violates  no 
treaty  rights;  that  which  presents  no  discrimination,  and 
that  which  can  give  no  just  cause  for  offense. 

You  have  suggested  to  me  delay,  but  this  question  was 
very  earnestly  and  fully  presented  by  you  to  our  Legislature, 
and  the  Legislature  determined  to  proceed.  My  province  is 
to  approve  or  disapprove  the  law  as  presented.  Our  people, 
as  represented  in  the  Legislature,  have  overwhelmingly  ex- 
pressed their  desire  for  the  present  alien  land  bill.  The 
vote  in  the  Senate  was  35  to  2,  and  in  the  Assembly  72  to 
3.  With  such  unanimity  of  opinion,  even  did  I  hold  other 
views,  I  would  feel  it  my  plain  duty  to  sign  the  bill,  unless 
some  absolutely  controlling  necessity  demanded  contrary 


VI 


action.     Apparently  no  such  controlling  necessity  exists. 

It  is  with  the  highest  respect  for  yourself  and  the 
President  that  I  feel  my  duty  to  my  State  compels  me  to 
approve  the  action  of  the  Legislature. 

(Signed)  HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON, 

Governor  of  California. 


BRYAN'S  FAREWELL  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE. 
(Referred  to  on  Page  259.) 

Governor   Johnson,    Lieutenant-Governor    Wallace,    Speaker 

Young,  and  Members  of  the  Legislature: 
As  I  am  departing  this  afternoon  for  Washington,  I 
deem  it  proper  that  I  should  say  a  final  word  to  you.  My 
coming,  at  the  President's  request,  upon  the  mission  that 
brought  me,  was  unusual,  and  yet,  in  the  President's 
opinion,  not  only  right  in  principle  but  wise  in  policy. 
It  was  in  keeping  with  his  own  course  in  appearing  in  per- 
son to  deliver  a  message  to  Congress.  He  recognizes  the 
division  of  the  powers  of  government  among  the  three  de- 
partments, the  Executive,  the  Legislative,  and  the  Judicial, 
but  he  feels  that,  as  they  must  co-operate  in  the  conduct 
of  the  government,  there  should  be  the  utmost  frankness 
and  cordiality  between  them  in  the  performance  of  their 
respective  duties.  In  like  manner  while  he  recognizes  the 
division  of  responsibility  between  the  Federal  Government 
and  the  several  States,  he  believes  that  this  division  should 
not  preclude  conference  and  consultation  between  the  Ex- 
ecutive of  the  Nation  and  those  entrusted  by  your  State 
Constitution  with  the  exercise  of  State  authority. 

A  question  having  arisen  which,  while  local  in  its  im- 
mediate operation  is  yet  national  and  even  international  in 
some  of  its  phases,  he  ventured  to  advise  against  the  use 
of  certain  language  in  bills  which  were  under  consideration. 
When  it  seemed  probable  that  the  words  would  be  used, 
notwithstanding  the  advice  which  he  had  earnestly  given,  he 
asked  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the  Legislature  to 
have  the  Secretary  of  State  visit  Sacramento  to  confer  in 
regard  to  the  national  and  international  phases  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  reply  made  by  the  Legislature  was  in  the  form 
of  a  resolution  which  reads  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  California, 
that  while  this  Senate  respectfully  maintains  the  right 
of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  to  legislate 
on  the  subject  of  land  ownership  within  the  State,  it 
will  be  entirely  agreeable  to  the  Senate  to  have  the 


Vll 


Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  visit  Sacra- 
mento for  the  purposes  indicated  in  the  President's  tele- 
gram; and  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  probable  early  ad- 
journment of  the  Legislature,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate  be  and  he  is  hereby  instructed  to  transmit  forth- 
with these  resolutions  by  telegraph  to  the  President." 

If  this  resolution  could  not  be  construed  as  an  invitation, 
it,  at  least,  expressed  full  acquiescence,  and  the  President 
felt  so  deeply  upon  the  .subject  that  he  sent  me  here  to 
confer  with  you. 

I  need  not  recount  the  experiences  through  which  we 
have  passed.  The  Legislature,  in  so  far  as  it  has  acted,  has 
found  it  inconsistent  with  its  view  of  its  responsibilities  to 
follow  the  President's  advice  in  the  wording  of  the  law 
which  it  regards  it  as  its  duty  to  enact.  While  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  action  of  the  As- 
sembly on  this  subject,  I  have  so  fully  presented  the  Presi- 
dent's views  that  I  do  not  deem  a  longer  stay  necessary. 
On  the  contrary,  I  feel  that  I  can  be  more  useful  at  Wash- 
ington when  the  President  has  before  him  the  bill  as  it 
reaches  the  Governor,  if  it  shall  finally  pass  the  Assembly. 

I  cannot,  however,  take  my  departure  without  giving 
expression  to  my  appreciation  of  the  spirit  in  which,  as  a 
representative  of  the  President,  I  have  been  received,  and  of 
the  courtesies  that  have  been  shown  me  at  all  times  by 
Governor  Johnson,  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace,  by 
Speaker  Young  and  by  the  Members  of  both  the  Senate  and 
the  Assembly.  The  amity  that  has  characterized  our  inter- 
course with  the  officials  of  this  State  is  in  keeping,  I  think, 
with  the  course  that  should  be  pursued  by  those  who, 
acting  under  a  sense  of  responsibility  about  matters  in  which 
they  are  jointly  concerned,  are  unable  to  agree  upon  the 
means  to  be  employed  for  reaching  the  end  in  view.  The 
President  has  impressed  upon  me  at  all  times  that  I  should 
emphasize  the  fact  that  his  only  purpose  is  to  confer  with 
the  Legislature  as  to  the  national  and  international  phases 
of  the  question  under  consideration,  and  that  he  confers  as 
a  not  unsympathetic  friend  who  desires  to  aid  to  the  extent 
of  his  ability  in  a  matter  where  he  has  not  only  a  consti- 
tutional duty  to  perform,  but  where  he  may  be  assumed  to 
be  able  to  judge  of  the  effect  of  legislation  upon  our  rela- 
tions with  other  countries.  He  has  pointed  out  the  things 
which  seem  to  him  unwise  in  the  bill  that  has  passed  the 
Senate.  The  first  words  to  which  he  calls  attention  are 
"eligible  to  citizenship,"  which  are  as  clearly  discriminating 
as  the  words  "ineligible  to  citizenship,"  against  which  he 
so  earnestly  advises.  In  the  second  paragraph  the  property 


Vlll 


rights  of  those  therein  described  are  defined  as  they  are 
defined  in  the  treaty.  He  fears  that  this  will  raise  a  ques- 
tion of  construction  and  involve  the  subject  in  a  lawsuit  that 
may  be  both  irritating  and  protracted.  I  have  submitted  to 
him  the  suggestion — but,  owing  to  his  absence  from  Wash- 
ington just  at  this  time,  have  been  unable  as  yet  to  secure 
an  answer — that  a  time  limit  upon  any  bill  which  you  pass 
might  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  unfavorable  influence  it 
exerts,  if  that  influence  is  unfavorable.  If,  for  instance, 
any  bill  that  you  pass  dealing  with  the  subject,  is  limited 
in  its  operation  to  two  years  or  even  four  years,  but  two 
years  would  give  opportunity  for  the  next  Legislature  to 
act  upon  the  subject — it  would  afford  an  opportunity  for 
diplomatic  effort  with  the  hope  that  the  situation  could  be 
so  improved  as  to  make  a  re-enactment  of  the  law  unneces- 
sary. Assuming  that  the  people  of  California  will  be  satis- 
fied to  reach  the  end  which  they  desire  by  methods  which 
will  cause  the  least  friction  between  this  and  other  nations, 
this  suggestion  is  made  for  the  consideration  of  those  who 
have  yet  to  act  upon  the  subject. 

If  the  Legislature  is  willing  to  avoid  the  use  of  the  words 
"eligible  to  citizenship"  or  "ineligible  to  citizenship"  I  am 
authorized  to  suggest  that  the  line  might  be  drawn  at  an- 
other point,  namely,  between  those  whose  right  to  own 
land  is  defined  by  treaty  and  those  whose  right  to  own 
land  is  not  defined  by  treaty,  the  former  to  be  allowed  to 
own  according  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  and  the  latter  to 
be  allowed  to  hold  on  the  same  terms  that  citizens  of  the 
United  States  hold  land.  But  the  President  desires  me  to 
keep  before  you  at  all  times  the  fact  that  he  would  prefer, 
if  consistent  with  your  views  of  the  State's  interests,  to 
have  all  action  deferred  for  a  time  sufficient  to  permit  him 
to  employ  diplomatic  means. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  recall  his  preferences  as  they  have 
been  stated  to  you  before: 

First:  The  postponement  of  action  at  this  time,  re- 
minding you  again  that  under  your  Constitution  the  Legis- 
lature can  be  convened  at  any  time  to  deal  with  the  sub- 
ject as  the  necessity  of  the  case  may  require. 

Second:  If  action  is  deemed  necessary,  he  would  prefer 
such  action  as  has  been  taken  by  the  State  of  Illinois, 
where  no  distinction  is  made  between  aliens  and  a  liberal 
time  allowed  during  which  an  alien  can  hold  property. 

Third:  If  it  is  deemed  necessary  to  still  further  re- 
strict the  holding  of  property,  he  prefers  such  a  law  as  the 
District  of  Columbia  now  has,  where  the  ownership  of  real 
estate  is  confined  to  citizens  and  to  those  who  have  de- 
clared their  intentions  of  becoming  citizens. 


IX 


Fourth:  Whatever  the  form  of  the  law,  he  earnestly 
advises  against  words  intended  to  draw  a  distinction  be- 
tween those  eligible  to  citizenship  and  those  ineligible. 

Having  performed  the  duty  imposed  upon  me  by  the 
Chief  Executive  of  the  Nation,  my  work  is  done.  You  have 
listened  patiently  and  courteously  and  now  the  responsibility 
rests  upon  you  to  do  what  you  deem  necessary,  recognizing, 
as  you  doubtless  do,  that  you  act  not  only  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  State  dealing  with  lands  lying  within  the 
State,  but  as  the  representatives  of  a  State  occupying  a 
position  among  her  sister  States  and  sharing  with  them  an 
interest  in  and  responsibility  for  international  relations. 

You  are  fortunate  in  this  State  in  having  the  initiative 
and  referendum.  The  initiative  spurs  you  on  to  do  that 
which  you  believe  your  people  want  done,  while  the  refer- 
endum empowers  those  for  whom  you  speak  to  put  their 
veto  upon  your  acts  if  you  fail  to  reflect  their  wishes.  It 
may  be  assumed,  therefore,  that  if  you  feel  it  your  duty 
to  enact  any  legislation  on  this  subject  at  this  time,  your 
people  will  either  manifest  their  approval  by  acquiescence  or 
their  disapproval  by  submitting  your  action  to  the  judgment 
of  the  voters  by  means  of  the  referendum. 

I  leave  you  with  renewed  assurances  of  the  President's 
friendly  concern  in  the  subject  with  which  you  are  dealing 
and  of  my  appreciation  of  the  kind  reception  which  you 
have  accorded  me  as  his  spokesman. 


SENATOR  GATES'  FAREWELL  TO  BRYAN. 
(Referred  to  on  Page  259.) 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  speak  the  sentiments  of  the 
Legislature  at  this  moment  I  beg  to  convey  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  of  our  Nation  and  through  him  to  the  Chief  Execu- 
tive, whom  we  shall  delight  to  honor  and  obey  in  every 
respect  which  we  believe  consonant  with  our  duty  to  our 
State  and  to  the  work  entrusted  to  us  upon  this  coast,  I 
would  say  that  this  Legislature  appreciates  to  its  fullest 
degree  the  honor  that  has  been  done  to  this  State,  the 
interest  shown  in  the  visit  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  join 
with  us  in  the  endeavor  to  provide  such  legislation  as  shall 
be  for  the  protection  of  our  State,  of  her  people,  of  our 
civilization,  here  upon  this  coast,  and  the  honor  of  the 
Nation  and  her  relation  with  sister  nations  of  the  earth. 
We  realize  that  the  visit  of  the  Secretary  of  State  upon  a 
mission  of  this  character,  traversing  the  continent  from 


coast  to  coast  to  co-operate  with  us  to  the  great  end  that 
we  are  seeking,  marks  an  era  in  American  politics — marks 
that  degree  of  advance  which  we  believe  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Nation  at  large  and  the  conduct  of  public  affairs,  in 
that  it  brings  the  Federal  Government  into  closer  touch 
with  that  of  the  individual  State  and  marks  a  further  ad- 
vance in  the  making  of  the  States  each  a  closer  integer  with 
the  family  of  States  of  which  this  Nation  is  composed. 

I  wish  further  to  express,  upon  the  part  of  this  Legis- 
lature, our  profound  appreciation  and  gratitude  for  the  in- 
terest that  has  been  taken  by  the  National  Government  in 
the  problem  that  confronts  the  Legislature  of  California  and 
to  assure  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States  that  even  though  we  may  differ  in  the  phrase- 
ology and  terms  which  we  may  feel  necessary  to  employ  in 
legislation  of  the  kind  which  is  the  subject  of  the  visit  of 
the  Secretary  of  State,  that  we  do  it  with  profoundest  re- 
spect for  the  opinions  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  of  the 
President  which  has  animated  this  visit,  and  if  we  feel 
impelled  to  depart  in  the  slightest  degree  from  the  advice 
of  the  President  in  this  particular,  we  must  still  do  it 
with  the  highest  respect  for  the  wishes  of  the  Chief  Execu- 
tive of  the  Nation. 

Speaking  finally,  I  wish  to  say  that  it  is  the  purpose  and 
the  desire  upon  the  part  of  this  Legislature,  in  so  far  as  it 
finds  it  or  can  find  it  consonant  with  the  duty  it  has  to  per- 
form, that  we  thank  the  President  and  his  Secretary  for  the 
assistance  which  they  have  given  to  us  and  to  express  the 
hope  that  this  visit  may  be  the  forerunner  of  further  activi- 
ties by  the  National  Government  in  assisting  the  sister 
States  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  as  citizens  and  as 
parts  of  our  great  Republic.  Therefore,  upon  behalf  of  this 
Legislature,  I  beg  Mr.  Bryan  to  express  our  thanks  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  for  his  interest  and  his  as- 
sistance and  to  you  for  the  courtesy  and  kindliness  with 
which  you  have  performed  the  duties  of  your  ambassador- 
ship to  the  State  of  California. 


XI 


TABLES  OF  VOTES. 

The  votes  included  in  the  accompanying  tables  are  di- 
vided under  four  heads: 

(1)  Those   dealing   with   so-called    Progressive   policies — 
Tables  I  and  II. 

(2)  Those    dealing    with    the    so-called    moral    issues — 
Tables    III    and    IV. 

(3)  Those  dealing  with  measures  supported  by  the  Labor 
Lobby — Tables   V   and   VI. 

(4)  Those  dealing  with  measures  which  had  the  endorse- 
ment of  representative  organizations  of  women — Tables  VII 
and  VIII. 

In  selecting  measures  for  tabulation,  the  most  important 
in  each  group  have  been  taken.  It  has  not  been  the  inten- 
tion to  pass  arbitrarily  upon  these  measures  as  good  or 
bad.  The  reader  is,  however,  furnished  the  data  showing 
how  the  several  legislators  voted  on  the  several  measures. 
He  can,  from  this  data,  estimate  the  records  of  the  various 
members  for  himself. 

In  a  number  of  cases,  the  same  issue  comes  under  more 
than  one  heading.  The  votes  on  such  measures,  therefore, 
appear  in  more  than  one  table.  Thus,  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Act  (Senate  Bill  905)  while  one  of  the  most 
important  and  most  bitterly  contested  of  the  so-called 
Progressive  measures,  was  at  the  same  time  one  of  the 
bills  most  strongly  urged  for  passage  by  representatives  of 
labor.  The  votes  on  the  bill  are  accordingly  included  in  the 
tables  of  votes  on  Progressive  measures,  and  in  the  tables 
of  votes  on  policies  which  had  the  support  of  Labor.  Sev- 
eral measures  counted  among  the  so-called  moral  issues,  as 
well  as  Progressive  measures,  had  the  strong  support  of 
organized  women.  The  votes  on  such  measures  appear  in 
more  than  one  table. 


Xll 


TABLES  I  AND  II  SENATE  AND  ASSEMBLY  VOTES 
ON  PROGRESSIVE  POLICIES. 

Table  I  shows  the  records  of  the  Senators  on  seventeen 
votes  on  so-called  Progressive  policies. 

Table  II  shows  Assembly  votes  on  such  policies. 
Neither  Republican  nor  Democratic  party  has  a  monopoly 
of  support  of  any  of  these  policies.  The  Progressive  wing 
of  each  party,  however,  does  support  them. 

TABLE    I,   SENATE    VOTES   ON    PROGRESSIVE    POLICIES. 

"A"  and  "B."  Senate  vote  on  Senator  Wright's  proposed 
amendments  to  the  Water  Conservation  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
642).  See  Chapter  XII. 

"C."  Senate  vote  on  Conservation  bill.  See  Chapter 
XII. 

"D."  Senate  vote  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  bill  (As- 
sembly Bill  197).  See  Chapter  VI. 

"E."  Senate  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  Act  (Assembly 
Bill  353).  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"F."  Senate  vote  on  Senator  Wright's  first  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  act.  Wright's 
motion  was  in  the  form  of  the  following  resolution:  "Re- 
solved, That  Senate  Bill  No.  905  be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Labor  and  Capital, 
with  instructions  to  amend  Section  12a  so  that  the  liability 
on  the  part  of  employers  to  compensate  their  employees 
may  be  made  elective  and  not  compulsory." 

"G."  Senate  vote  on  Senator  Wright's  second  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  act.  This 
amendment  was  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  which  read  as 
follows:  "Resolved,  That  Senate  Bill  No.  905  be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Labor 
and  Capital,  with  instructions  to  strike  therefrom  Sections 
36  to  50  inclusive,  relating  to  State  insurance."  The  vote  on 
this  amendment,  Senator  for  Senator,  was  the  same  as  the 
vote  on  the  third  important  amendment  offered  by  Senator 
Wright,  to  eliminate  the  paragraphs  relating  to  an  inspection 


Kill 


department  for  accident  prevention,  and  proposing  as  sub- 
stitute an  entirely  new  act.  This  proposed  substitute  will 
be  found  on  page  1854  of  the  Senate  Journal  for  the  1913 
session. 

"H."  Senate  vote  on  the  Workmen's  Compensation  act 
(Senate  Bill  905).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"I."  Senate  vote  on  Kehoe  Insurance  bill  (Senate  Bill 
896).  See  Chapter  XV. 

"]."  Senate  vote  on  Weights  and  Measures  bill  (Senate 
Bill  32).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"K."  Senate  vote  on  Minimum  Wage  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  1251).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"L."  Senate  vote  on  "Blue  Sky"  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
2086).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"M."  Senate  vote  on  Civil  Service  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
2080).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"N."  Senate  vote  on  Non-Partisan  Primary  bill  (As- 
sembly Bill  1812).  See  Chapter  XXVIII.  . 

"O."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  451,  providing  for  a 
Commission  to  deal  with  immigration  problem. 

"P."  Senate  vote  on  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  bill 
(Assembly  Bill  970).  See  chapter  XXIX. 

"Q."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  165,  which  provides 
for  the  appointment  of  two  delegates  to  represent  the  State 
in  inquiry  into  the  European  Rural  Credit  System. 

TABLE    II.     ASSEMBLY   VOTES— PROGRESSIVE    POLICIES. 

"A."  First  Assembly  vote  on  Water  Conservation  bill 
(Assembly  Bill  642).  See  Chapter  X. 

"B."  Second  Assembly  vote  on  Water  Conservation 
bill.  See  Chapter  XL 

"C."  Assembly  vote  to  concur  in  Senate  amendments  to 
the  Water  Conservation  bill.  See  Chapter  XII. 

"D."  Assembly  vote  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  bill  (As- 
sembly Bill  197).  See  Chapter  VI. 

"E."  Assembly  vote  on  amendment  to  the  Redlight 
Abatement  act.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 


XIV 


"F."  Assembly  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  act  (As- 
sembly Bill  353).  See  chapter  XXVII. 

"G."  Assembly  vote  on  Byrnes'  proposed  amendments 
to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  act.  The  proposed  amend- 
ments will  be  found  on  page  2856  of  the  Assembly  Journal 
of  the  1913  session. 

"H."  Assembly  vote  on  Workmen's  Compensation  act 
(Senate  Bill  905).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"I."  Assembly  vote  on  Ferguson  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
1620).  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

"J."  Assembly  vote  on  Weights  and  Measures  bill 
(Senate  Bill  32).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"K."  Assembly  vote  on  Minimum  Wage  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  1251).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"L."  Assembly  vote  on  Blue  Sky  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
2086).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"M."  Assembly  vote  on  Civil  Service  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  2080).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"N."  Assembly  vote  on  Non-Partisan  Primary  bill  (As- 
sembly Bill  1812).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"O."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  451,  providing  for  a 
Commission  to  deal  with  immigration  problem. 

"P."  Assembly  vote  on  Legislative  Reference  Bureau 
bill  (Assembly  Bill  970).  See  Chapter  XXIX. 

"Q."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  165,  which  provides 
for  the  appointment  of  two  delegates  to  represent  the 
State  in  inquiry  into  the  European  Rural  Credit  System. 

TABLES    III    AND    IV.      SENATE    AND    ASSEMBLY 
VOTES  ON  SO-CALLED  MORAL  ISSUES. 

Table  III  shows  thirteen  Senate  votes  on  measures  deal- 
ing with   the   social   evil,   gambling,    saloon    regulation,    etc. 
Table  IV  shows  Assembly  votes  on  similar  measures. 
TABLE    III— SENATE   VOTES— MORAL    ISSUES. 

"A."  Senate  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  act  (As- 
sembly Bill  353).  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"B."     Senate   vote  on  motion  to   send   to   Public  Morals 


XV 


Committee  Beban  resolution  calling  for  Senate  investigation 
of  vice   conditions   in    California.     See   Chapter   XXVI. 

"C."  Senate  vote  on  adoption  of  Beban  resolution.  See 
Chapter  XXVI. 

"D."  Senate  vote  on  Exposition  "Dry  Zone"  bill  (Sen- 
ate Bill  384).  See  Chapter  XXII. 

"E."  Senate  vote  on  Morgenstern's  Anti-Gambling  bill 
(Assembly  Bill  1581).  See  Chapter  XXII. 

"F."  Senate  vote  on  Butler-Ellis  University  "Dry  Zone" 
bill  (Senate  Bill  672).  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

"G."  Senate  vote  on  Anti-Lottery  bill  (Senate  Bill  143). 
See  Chapter  XXII. 

"H."  Senate  vote  on  Brown  Anti-Prize  Fight  bill  (Sen- 
ate Bill  735).  See  Chapter  XXIV. 

"I."  Senate  vote  on  Juilliard's  amendment  to  Anti-Prize 
Fight  bill  (Senate  Bill  735).  See  Chapter  XXIV. 

"J."  Senate  vote  on  Larkins'  proposed  amendment  to 
Senate  Bill  10.  Senate  Bill  10  raised  the  age  of  consent  to 
eighteen.  Under  the  proposed  amendment  the  provisions 
of  the  bill  would  have  applied  in  the  case  of  females  be- 
tween the  ages  of  sixteen  and  eighteen  only  to  those  who 
were  of  previous  chaste  character. 

"K."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  10,  raising  the  age  of 
consent  to  eighteen. 

"L."  Vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Senate  Bill  142, 
the  1  to  5  a.  m.  Saloon  Closing  bill.  The  amendment,  had 
it  been  adopted,  would  have  made  the  closing  hours  from 
2  to  6  a.  m.  See  Chapter  XXII. 

"M."  Vote  on  Senate  Bill  142,  to  require  saloons  to  be 
closed  between  the  hours  of  1  to  5  a.  m.  See  Chapter 
XXII. 

TABLE    IV— ASSEMBLY   VOTES— MORAL    ISSUES. 

"A."  Assembly  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Red- 
light  Abatement  act.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"B."  Assembly  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  act  (As- 
sembly Bill  353).  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"C."     First   Assembly   vote    on    Ferguson   bill,   to   break 


XVI 


down  the  "dry  zone"  at  the  State  University  (Assembly 
Bill  1620).  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

"D."  Second  Assembly  vote  on  Ferguson  bill.  See 
Chapter  XXIII. 

"E."  Assembly  vote  on  Morgenstern  Anti-Gambling 
bill  (Assembly  Bill  1581).  See  Chapter  XXII. 

"F."  Assembly  vote  on  Call  of  House,  Butler-Ellis 
University  "dry  zone"  bill.  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

"G."  Assembly  vote  on  amendment  to  Butler-Ellis  Uni- 
versity "Dry  Zone"  bill.  The  adoption  of  this  amendment 
defeated  the  bill.  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

"H."  First  Assembly  vote  on  Brown  (Assemblyman) 
Anti-Prize  Fight  bill  (Assembly  Bill  880).  See  Chapter 
XXIV. 

"I."  Second  Assembly  vote  on  Brown  (Assemblyman) 
Anti-Prize  Fight  bill.  See  Chapter  XXIV. 

"J."  Assembly  vote  on  Guill  Anti-Gambling  bill  (As- 
sembly Bill  1236).  See  Chapter  XXII. 

"K."  Assembly  vote  on  proposed  amendment  of  the 
Butler  Age  of  Consent  bill.  This  bill  raised  the  age  of 
consent  to  eighteen  (Senate  Bill  10). 

"L."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  10,  raising  age  of 
consent  to  eighteen. 

"M."  Assembly  vote  on  amendment  to  the  1  to  5  a.  m. 
Saloon  Closing  bill  (Senate  Bill  142).  This  amendment 
changed  the  hours  during  which  saloons  must  be  closed 
to  2  to  6  a.  m. 

TABLES   V   AND   VI— SENATE   AND    ASSEMBLY 
VOTES,  LABOR  ISSUES. 

Table  V  shows  nineteen  Senate  votes  on  measures  sup- 
ported by  representatives  of  Labor  who  remained  at  Sacra- 
mento during  the  session.  Table  VI  shows  twenty  As- 
sembly votes  on  such  measures. 

TABLE  V— SENATE  VOTES— LABOR  ISSUES. 

"A,"  "B,"  "C."  Senate  votes  on  proposed  amendments 
to  Workmen's  Compensation  act  (Senate  Bill  905).  See 


XV11 


Chapter  XXVIII,  and  explanation  of  votes  "F"  and  "G." 
Key  to  Table  I. 

"D."     Senate  vote  on  Workmen's   Compensation   act. 

"E"  and  "F."  First  and  second  votes  in  Senate  on 
Anti-Injunction  bill  (Senate  Bill  54). 

"G."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  752,  creating  office 
of  mine  inspector. 

"H."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  560,  removing  the 
property  qualification  of  jurors. 

"I."  Senate  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Water 
Conservation  bill.  See  Chapter  XII.  The  adoption  of  this 
amendment  would  have  made  the  passage  of  the  bill  dif- 
ficult if  not  improbable. 

"J."  Senate  vote  on  Water  Conservation  bill.  See 
Chapter  XII. 

"K."  Senate  vote  on  A.  B.  2070,  Employees'  Ferry  bill. 
Permitting  employees  of  the  Mare  Island  Navy  Yard  to 
use  their  own  boats  in  crossing  from  the  city  of  Vallejo  to 
their  work  at  the  Navy  Yard.  A  transportation  company 
had  set  up  a  claim  that  employees  could  not  use  their  own 
boats  to  cross  the  channel.  The  contention  of  the  trans- 
portation company  had  been  sustained  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  Assembly  Bill  2070  removed  the  legal  difficulties. 
The  Navy  Yard  employees  were  made  free  to  cross  the 
channel  in  any  way  they  might  see  fit. 

"L."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1574,  providing  jury 
trials  in  certain  cases  of  contempt  of  court. 

"M."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  7,  to  give  the  several  counties  of  the  State  the 
power  to  decide  what  property  shall  be  taxed,  and  what 
exempted  from  taxation. 

"N."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  1520.  This  measure 
provided  definitely  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  parties  to  a 
labor  dispute  to  visit  the  residence,  place  of  work  or  place 
of  business  of  any  of  the  parties  thereto,  for  the  purpose 
of  peacefully  making  observations,  securing  or  communi- 
cating information  regarding  the  progress  and  merits  of 


XV111 


said  dispute,  and  peacefully  recommending,  advising  or 
persuading  any  person  or  persons  or  the  general  public 
to  work  for  or  to  abstain  from  working  for,  or  to  deal 
with  or  to  abstain  from  dealing  with  any  such  party  with 
whom  the  said  dispute  is  pending. 

"O."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  1740.  This  measure 
is  intended  to  minimize  the  loan  shark  evil. 

"P."  Senate  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  exclude 
graduate  nurses  in  hospitals  from  the  provisions  of  Senate 
Bill  466,  the  Women's  Eight-Hour  bill. 

"Q."  Senate  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill  to  permit  women  to  work  fifty-six  hours  a 
week  in  hospitals. 

"R."  Senate  vote  on  amendment  of  Women's  Eight- 
Hour  bill  to  permit  female  employees  to  work  more  than 
eight  hours  a  day  in  manufacture  of  goods  from  raw  cotton, 
hemp,  jute  or  flax,  provided  they  work  not  more  than  eight 
and  three-quarters  hours  in  one  day,  nor  more  than  forty- 
eight  hours  in  one  week. 

"S."  Vote  on  Senate  Bill  134,  the  Senate  "Cement  bill." 
This  measure  provided  for  the  packing  of  cement  in  such 
a  way  as  to  prevent  the  escape  of  cement  dust  from  the 
containers  in  handling  and  shipping. 

TABLE   VI— ASSEMBLY    VOTES— LABOR    ISSUES. 

"A."  Assembly  vote  on  Byrnes'  proposed  amendments 
to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  act.  The  proposed  amend- 
ments will  be  found  on  page  2856  of  the  Assembly  Journal 
of  the  1913  session. 

"B."  Assembly  vote  on  Workmen's  Compensation  act 
(Senate  Bill  905).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"C."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1574,  providing 
jury  trials  in  certain  cases  of  contempt  of  court. 

"D."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  468.  This  meas- 
ure provided  for  placing  safety  blocks  in  all  frogs  and 
guard  rails  used  in  the  .operation  of  railroads. 

"E."     Assembly  vote   on   Assembly   Bill  31,   the   General 


XIX 


Eight-Hour  bill.  This  measure  was  introduced  by  Kingsley, 
the  first  Socialist  member  to  sit  in  the  California  Legis- 
lature. It  was  strongly  supported  by  Organized  Labor. 

"F."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  1413.  This  measure 
provides  for  the  regulation  of  private  employment  agencies 
under  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

"G."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  752,  creating  the 
office  of  mine  inspector. 

"H."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  560,  abolishing 
the  property  qualifications  of  jurors. 

"I."  First  Assembly  vote  on  the  Water  Conservation 
bill  (Assembly  Bill  642).  See  Chapter  X. 

"J."  Second  Assembly  vote  on  the  Water  Conservation 
bill  (Assembly  Bill  642).  See  Chapter  XI. 

"K."  When  the  "Ferry  bill"  (Assembly  Bill  2070,  de- 
scribed under  note  "K"  of  Table  "V")  came  up  in  the 
Assembly,  Johnston  moved  that  it  be  re-referred  to  the 
Judiciary  Committee.  The  vote  given  in  column  "K"  was 
on  Johnston's  motion. 

"L."  Assembly  vote  on  the  "Ferry  bill"  (Assembly  Bill 
2070).  Described  in  Key  to  Chapter  "V,"  column  "K." 

"M."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  7,  to  give  the  several  counties  of  the  State  the 
power  to  decide  what  property  shall  be  taxed  and  what 
exempted  from  taxation. 

"N."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  374,  which  pro- 
vided an  eight-hour  day  for  minors. 

"O."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  609,  providing  an 
attorney  of  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

"P."  Assembly  vote  on  amendments  to  the  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill  (Senate  Bill  466),  proposed  by  Killings- 
worth.  These  amendments  will  be  found  on  page  2700  of 
the  Assembly  Journal  for  the  1913  session.  The  adoption  of 
the  amendments  would  have  excluded  certain  female  work- 
ers in  fruit  and  vegetable  enterprises  from  the  provisions  of 
the  bill. 

"Q."     Assembly   vote    on    amendments   to   the   Women's 


XX 


Eight-Hour  bill,  proposed  by  Bagby.  The  amendments  will 
be  found  on  page  2700  of  the  Assembly  Journal  for  1913. 
The  adoption  of  the  amendments  would  have  increased  the 
week's  work  of  women  in  certain  cases  from  forty-eight  to 
fifty-six  hours. 

"R."     Assembly   vote,  on    Women's    Eight-Hour   bill. 

"S"  and  "T."  First  and  second  votes  in  Assembly  on 
Assembly  Bill  75.  This  measure  required  the  packing  of 
cement  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  the  escape  of  cement 
dust  from  containers  in  handling  and  shipping. 

TABLES    VII    AND    VIII— SENATE    AND    ASSEMBLY 
VOTES  ON  POLICIES  SUPPORTED  BY  WOMEN. 

Table  VII  shows  fifteen  votes  on  measures  which  had 
the  support  or  the  opposition  of  representative  bodies  of 
women.  Table  VIII  shows  sixteen  Assembly  votes  on  such 
measures. 

TABLE  VII— SENATE  VOTES— WOMEN-SUPPORTED  POLICIES. 

"A."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1126,  which  required 
physical  and  medical  examination  of  candidates  for  mar- 
riage. This  measure,  against  the  protests  of  those  who 
were  advocating  its  passage,  was  amended  to  exclude 
women  from  its  provisions. 

"B."  Senate  vote  on  motion  to  send  to  Public  Morals 
Committee  Beban  resolution  calling  for  Senate  investiga- 
tion of  vice  conditions  in  California.  See  Chapter  XXVI. 

"C."  Senate  vote  on  adoption  of  Beban  resolution.  See 
Chapter  XXVI. 

"D."  Senate  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  act  (Assembly 
Bill  353).  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"E."  Senate  vote  on  Larkins's  proposed  amendment  to 
Senate  Bill  10.  Senate  Bill  10  raised  the  age  of  consent 
to  eighteen.  Under  the  proposed  amendment  the  provisions 
of  the  bill  would  have  applied  in  the  case  of  females  be- 
tween the  ages  of  sixteen  and  eighteen  only  to  those  who 
were  of  previous  chaste  character. 


XXI 


"F."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  10,  raising  the  age  of 
consent  to  eighteen. 

"G."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  676.  This  measure 
made  it  a  felony  to  cause,  entice,  persuade,  encourage,  in- 
duce or  aid  any  female  person  to  leave  one  county  for 
another  county  within  the  State  for  purposes  of  prosti- 
tution. 

"H."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  526,  the  "Regulation  of 
Nurses"  bill. 

"I."  Senate  vote  on  Minimum  Wage  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  1251).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"J."  Senate  vote  to  exclude  graduate  nurses  in  hos- 
pitals from  the  provisions  of  Senate  Bill  466,  the  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill. 

"K."  Senate  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill  to  permit  women  to  work  fifty-six  hours 
a  week  in  hospitals. 

"L."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  16,  making  public 
school-houses  civic  centers. 

"M."  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  46,  establishing  a 
State  Training  School  for  girls. 

"N."  Senate  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  199,  giving  father 
and  mother  of  an  unmarried  minor  child  joint  right  to  its 
custody,  services  and  earnings.  This  measure  was  known 
as  the  "Equal  Guardianship  bill." 

"O."  Senate  vote  on  A.  B.  1263,  providing  for  the 
payment  of  pensions  to  public  school  teachers. 

TABLE    VIII— ASSEMBLY    VOTES— WOM EN-SUPPORTED 
POLICIES. 

"A"  and  "B."  First  and  second  Assembly  vote  on  As- 
sembly Bill  1126,  which  required  physical  and  medical  ex- 
amination of  candidates  for  marriage.  This  measure  was 
amended  against  -the  protests  of  those  who  were  advocating 
its  passage,  to  exclude  women  from  its  provisions.  When 
first  voted  upon  in  the  Assembly,  the  measure  was  defeated. 
Later  it  was  passed  under  reconsideration. 


XX11 


"C."  Assembly  vote  on  proposed  amendment  to  Red- 
light  Abatement  act.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"D."  Assembly  vote  on  Redlight  Abatement  act  (As- 
sembly Bill  353).  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

"E."  Assembly  vote  on  proposed  amendment  of  the 
Butler  Age  of  Consent  bill.  This  bill  raised  the  age  of 
consent  to  eighteen  (Senate  Bill  10). 

"F."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  10,  raising  the  age 
of  consent  to  eighteen. 

"G."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  676.  This  measure 
made  it  a  felony  to  cause,  entice,  persuade,  encourage,  in- 
duce, or  aid  any  female  person  to  leave  one  county  for 
another  county  within  the  State  for  purposes  of  prostitution. 

"H."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  526,  the  "Regulation 
of  Nurses"  bill. 

"I."  Assembly  vote  on  Minimum  Wage  for  Women  bill 
(Assembly  Bill  1251).  See  Chapter  XXVIII. 

"J."  Assembly  vote  on  amendments  to  the  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill  (Senate  Bill  466),  proposed  by  Killings- 
worth.  These  amendments  will  be  found  on  page  2700  of 
the  Assembly  Journal  for  the  1913  session.  The  adoption 
of  these  amendments  would  have  excluded  certain  female 
workers  in  fruit  and  vegetable  enterprises  from  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill. 

"K."  Assembly  vote  on  amendments  to  the  Women's 
Eight-Hour  bill  proposed  by  Bagley.  The  amendments 
will  be  found  on  page  2700  of  the  Assembly  Journal  for 
1913.  The  adoption  of  the  amendments  would  have  in- 
creased the  week's  work  in  certain  cases  from  forty-eight 
to  fifty-six  hours. 

"L."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  16,  making  public 
school  houses  civic  centers. 

"M."  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  46,  establishing  a 
State  Training  School  for  Girls. 

"N."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  199,  giving  father 
and  mother  of  an  unmarried  minor  child  joint  right  to  its 


XX111 


custody,  services  and  earnings.  This  measure  was  known 
as  the  "Equal  Guardianship"  bill. 

"O."  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1263,  providing  for  the 
payment  of  pensions  to  public  school  teachers. 

"P."  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1,  amending 
Section  25  of  the  Civil  Code  to  read:  "Minors  are  males 
and  females  under  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  of  age." 
This  measure  was  known  as  the  "Equal  Age  of  Minority" 
bill. 


Table  I— Records  of  Senators, 


|A|B|C|D|E|F|Q|       H 


FOR   KEY 

"So 

•no  _ 

bco 

•no 

'rvation 
S42. 

levenue 
jn  Bill, 

bfi 
•d 

|gl 

|gi 

in  A 
o  8 

05   0 

0 

ffl 

SEE 

•u   ^ 

Tl        ^ 

W     . 

+3 

4_l   ® 

o^ 

PAGE    XII 
OF 

•** 

•-I  e  e 
c_o 

--OS 

h 

o  • 

e^g- 

tie 

4) 

si 

*£ 

S^£ 

OQ  fie 

OJ  O 

APPENDIX. 

jll 

§§| 

o^_. 

13" 

0« 
^co 

I'll 

ii§ 

t,  CQ 

Senators. 


[Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|Xo  |Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No 


Anderson   

0 

0 

o 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Avey  

* 

* 

* 

Beban    

* 

* 

* 

n 

* 

* 

Benson  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Birdsall    

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Boynton    

n 

0 

* 

* 

o 

* 

* 

Breed    

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Brown  
Bryant    
Butler    

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

Caminetti   
Campbell   

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 

Cartwright  

0 

n 

n 

Cassidy    

* 

0 

Cogswell    
Cohn   

n 

n 

o 

* 

0 

n 

* 

n 

* 

* 

0 

Curtin    

n 

n 

o 

* 

* 

0 

n 

0 

Finn  

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

Flint   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Gates    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Gerdes    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Grant    

* 

* 

* 

Hans  

* 

n 

* 

Hewitt    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Jones  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Jullliard  

0 

n 

* 

* 

n 

n 

0 

n 

Kehoe  

• 

• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Larkins    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

n 

Lyon   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Mott  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Owens  

0 

n 

n 

* 

* 

0 

Regan    

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

Rush   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Sanford    

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Shanahan    

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Strobridge  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Thompson  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Tyrrell    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wright  

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Totals  |13  |18  |13  |21  |28  |  6  |35  |  0  |29 


6  |22  |  6  |20  |30  |  5 


Vote  K  —  t  Finn  changed  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


Session  1913,  on  Seventeen  Test  Votes 


I      K 


TOTALS. 


1     . 

'O    • 

P      * 

^ 

<D 

,     . 

Crri 

O  3 

i 

a  — 

a  ^ 

—  £Q 

M 

O 

^J  ffl 

om 

>d 

•^  ..j 

ni 

CO 

•J^ 

-    . 

*^i     * 

5  o> 

gto 

o  . 

•CS 

o  a 

OS    . 

on  Weights 
asures  Bill, 
32. 

§! 

CO 

00 

0)  00 

cog 

S 

O    . 

on  Non-Pa 
i  Primary,  A 
2_ 

on  Immigra 
mmission  Bil 
451. 

^M(^t— 
Jgffl' 

a  S«j 

°s  . 

—  M 

i" 

DCO 

ol 

Progressive 
icles. 

nst  Progres- 
e  Policies. 

"a 

*  3  O2 

*i?<§ 

-_  — 

-  •_- 

<C  J3j^ 

<u  o   • 

0)  V. 

o 

"3 

o~W 

o^ 

0« 

>w 

o  "i-1 

"Sura 

o«« 

o— 

p 

M,^ 

Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|    F 


* 
* 

• 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

13 

11 

12 
16 

3 

0 
2 
0 

1 

6 
3 

1 

e 

* 

* 

14 

3 

0 

* 
•  ' 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

12 
13 
13 
13 

3 
3 
0 

2 

2 
1 

4 

2 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

10 
10 
15 

4 
2 

2 
5 
0 
4 
1 

5 
2 
2 
9 
14 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

ot 

* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

11 
5 
4 
11 
11 

2 
9 
9 
3 
1 

4 
3 
4 
3 
5 

* 
* 
* 

* 

.9 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

16 
13 
9 
8 
13 

0 
1 
0 
2 
0 

1 
3 

8 
7 
4 

* 

* 
* 

t 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 

0 

It 

0 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

14 
8 
13 
11 
11 

0 
9 
1 
3 
1 

3 
0 
3 
3 
5 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

a 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

12 
5 
10 
11 
6 

1 
6 
3 
1 
4 

4 

6 
4 
5 

7 

* 
* 

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

9 
14 
16 
14 
3 

5 
1 
0 
1 
10 

3 
2 
1 

2 
4 

18  |18  |33  |  0 J27  |  7  |26  |  1  |25  |10  |21  [  2  |22  |  0  |24  |  2  |35  |  0  |  433  |  101  |  146 
Finn  changed  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
"*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
"0"  indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


Vote  K— f 
Character 
Character 


Table  II— Records  of  Assemblymen 


M 

S* 

*i 

i 

°< 

-0 

Si 

^ 

to 

to 

*1 

5 
H 

^  . 

.2 

»! 

0  g 

oS 

PQ 

C  d) 

c 

gc 

•  V 

P.  2 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE    XIII 
OF 

APPENDIX. 

Vote  on  A.  '. 
servation. 

d  Vote  on  A. 
servation. 

irrence  in  S 
>ndment,  Cor 

t^  ^ 

05  £ 

1-1  ni 

.  X 

0  4, 

on  Amendm 
light  Abatem< 
!53. 

on  A.  B.  353 

t  Abatement. 

.a 

030 

2 

li 

ii 

on  S.  B.  905, 
.'s  Compensat 

MO 

c  c 

O  0 

'3  <5  C 
C       ~ 

2c 

99 

_£"§) 

gog 

c 

Q>  11 

£U 

dj^ 

Q<J5 

o  « 

^PnW 

oS 

B*^** 

oG 

fa 

m 

O 

>• 

> 

t* 

<< 

K> 

Assemblymen.         |Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No[Aye|No|Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No 


Alexander  

0 

o 

* 

* 

* 

Ambrose    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Bagby  

0 

0 

o 

o 

o 

Beck    

0 

* 

* 

Benedict    | 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Bloodgood    
Bohnett    

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

Bowman  

n 

n 

• 

o 

o 

Bradford    

0 

0 

* 

n 

* 

Brown  

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Bush   

* 

* 

* 

n 

*' 

* 

Byrnes    

A 

n 

0 

0 

Canepa  

* 

o 

0 

* 

* 

Gary    

* 

* 

* 

* 

Chandler   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Clark,  Wm.  C  

* 

* 

* 

* 

Clarke,  Geo.  A  

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

Collins    

o 

n 

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Cram   

o 

o 

* 

Dower    

n 

0 

0 

Ellis    

* 

* 

* 

* 

Emmons    

* 

* 

Farwell    

* 

* 

* 

Ferguson  

* 

* 

* 

* 

Finnegan   

* 

* 

* 

Fish  

* 

* 

* 

* 

Fitzgerald  

* 

* 

* 

Ford    

o 

0 

n 

0 

Gabbert   

* 

* 

* 

* 

Gates    

* 

* 

* 

Gelder    

0 

* 

* 

Green    

* 

* 

Griffin    

n 

0 

0 

n 

0 

Guiberson   

0 

o 

0 

0 

Guill    

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Hayes    

o 

o 

* 

* 

Hinkle  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Inman  

o 

* 

* 

* 

Johnson,    G.    H  
Johnston,  T.  D  

* 

0 

, 

* 

0 

* 

• 

Totals    |19  |18  |23  |16  |24  |  7  |38  |  0  j  4  |35  |35  |  5  |  5  |25  |26  |  4 

Vote  L — t  Guiberson  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
Character  "0"   indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


Session  1913,  on  Seventeen  Test  Votes 

~~lJ|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|      TOTALS. 


u 

I 

I 

§ 

3 

s 

o 

O 

g  . 

71 
"5 

I 

o 

fe 

^  . 

to 

cT 

"J£ 

M5 

H 

00 

oo 

»  w 

\a 

rH 

M-  . 

25 

o 

o 

C] 

00  CJ 

S-g 

O 

0) 

00 

c^  ?j 

D 

D 

3 

_> 

O 

M  . 

.  ~ 
ffl3 

«8 

PQ 

Ms 

«£ 

w| 

rig 

m 

&5 

•<« 

tnS 

•<> 

•^3 

o 

<<c 

02° 

<i« 

VI 

t< 

^1 

ge 

-  ^ 

g  g 

cPQ 

c_w 

G  o 

C  a) 

C*J 

E^2 

•MPM 

. 

°o 

sf 

•r 

si 

®  Jsi 

«  a! 

B 

ajg 

°I 

a>2 

*! 

CO 

II 

'c 

o  to 

ia 

o*^ 

oCB 

"oCM 

'o  to 

O" 

QU 

QpM 

to" 

XI 

£* 

>• 

>• 

> 

t> 

> 

> 

> 

t> 

fc 

<J 

< 

Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No| 


* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

0 

9 

4 

4 

• 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
+ 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

14 
6 
10 
15 

0 
6 
3 

0 

5 
4 

2 

* 

* 

16 
16 

0 
0 

1 

1 

• 
• 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 
10 

5 
5 

0 

2 

.  0. 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

10 

2 

5 

t) 

0 

9 

6 

B 

10 

3 

0 

14 

1 

1 

15 

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

: 

\ 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
• 

* 

• 
* 
* 

0 

15 
10 
8 
13 

8 

0 
3 
6 
2 

4 

2 
4 
3 
2 
5 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

17 
9 
16 
16 
15 

0 

1 
0 
1 
0 

0 
7 
1 
0 

2 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 
6 

12 
7 
6 
17 
14 

1 
1 

7 
0 
1 

4 
9 
4 
0 
2 

e 
0 

* 

» 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 
Of 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

• 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

12 
13 
5 
6 
11 

1 
1 
10 
6 
4 

4 
3 

2 
5 
2 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
• 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

! 

0 

t 
* 
* 

* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

11 
16 
13 
11 
10 

3 
0 
2 
3 
3 

3 
1 
2 
3 
4 

19  |19  |27  |  0  |26  |  5  |29   |  0  |29  |  3  |32  |  0  |29  |  2  |27  |  0  |27  |10  |  469 


99 


Vote  L  —  t  Guiberson  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 
(Continued  on  Next  Page.) 


Table  II  Concluded — Records  of  Assemblymen, 


|A|B|C|D|E|F      | 


1       H 


5 

T)< 

IB 

^g 

ID 

2^ 

13 
• 

is 

t.  . 

PQ 

PQ 

C  <D 

•  9 

PH    . 

cc" 

5 

•  V 

pqn 

K-2 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE    XIII 

4 

a  c  - 

o.2 

<j 

§§ 

02  o 
O 
a 

^  c 

Si 

mendm 
Ibatemi 

co"   . 
ia-<-> 
«  C 

• 

«1 

• 

S 

ra6 
o 

• 

i| 

OF 
APPENDIX. 

•*-» 

O  Pj 

$t 
>% 

<i>t3 
0* 

£fc 

_  o> 
•O  ra 

§1 

PS 

—   c 

p^  a    • 

ji 

<J^ 

41 

-JS    • 

0-^S 

41 

c^ 

O+j 

§g 

g2 

C  jji 

•o-S  • 

.  o 
WO 

CjD 

*j  C 

26 

c  c 
o  o 

su 

IP 

§<:= 

•g§ 

SM 

0)  <U     . 

"SKM 

«"Si 

o  — 

c  o  c 

0)>>  0 

s^s 

if 

K 

CQ 

u 

!> 

r* 

g 

3 

^ 

Assemblymen.         |Aye|No |Aye|No |Aye|No [Aye|No|Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No 


Johnstone,  W.  A... 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

Killingsworth    

* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

0 

Kuck  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Libby    

0 

0 

* 

n 

McCarthy    

n 

0 

n 

* 

* 

McDonald   

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Moorhouse  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Morgenstern    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Mouser   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Murray   

0 

n 

o 

* 

n 

0 

0 

Nelson    

-» 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Nolan    

* 

n 

n 

* 

* 

Palmer  

0 

n 

* 

* 

* 

Peairs   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Polsley  

0 

n 

* 

* 

n 

Richardson    

n 

* 

o 

o 

* 

* 

Roberts  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

Ryan    

* 

* 

* 

0 

0 

• 

* 

Schmitt  

n 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Scott  

* 

* 

o 

* 

* 

* 

Shannon    

o 

n 

n 

n 

o 

* 

o 

Shartel    

* 

* 

* 

o 

* 

Shearer    

0 

0 

* 

* 

Simpson    

' 

n 

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

o 

Slater  

n 

o 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Smith   

n 

o 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Strine   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Stuckenbruck   

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Sutherland    

* 

* 

* 

* 

n 

* 

* 

Tulloch  

o 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wall    

0 

n 

* 

* 

• 

Walsh    

* 

* 

* 

n 

n 

* 

* 

Weisel    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

W'eldon    

n 

n 

* 

* 

n 

n 

White    

0 

n 

0 

n 

n 

* 

Woodley  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wyllie    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

n 

0 

Young  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Totals    

'1 

17 

?1 

14 

117 

B 

38 

0 

11 

"X 

IT7 

12 

8 

•>:>, 

?9 

9 

Brought  forward. 

19 

18 

23 

16 

|24 

7 

38 

0 

4 

35 

|w 

1  5 

5 

25 

26 

4 

Grand   totals |40  |35  |44  [30  |41  |10  |76  |  Q  |15  |63  |62  |17  |13  |48  |55  |13 

Vote  O — t  Killingsworth  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  Q — §  Polsley  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


Session  1913,  on  Seventeen  Test  Votes 


IT"!      P~j 


TOTALST 


£ 

09 

I 

p 

a 

i 

w^« 

w 

"3 

<D 
fa 

•  -• 

'5 

§ 

s 

o 

1^ 

s 

6g 

to 

c 

« 

o' 

(M 

'-<'_: 

00 

o 
oo 

sl 

-  n 

. 

• 

CD 
1-1 

£3  » 

W  m 

33 

o 

o 

00  Oj 

S-2 
*| 

o 

«e 

TH 

0) 

(0 

V     . 

w  . 

.  E 

ffl  yi 

w 

ffl'd 

w? 

PQ 

PQ  * 

PQ 

"S 

to  <D 

.  " 

M  03 

.  ^ 

i5 

Pi 

o 

CO 

o> 

2*0 

•^5 

030 

^P 

<is 

*< 

<ic 

CQ 

02 

tooj 

k? 

cj  ^ 

C^ 

g 

cPQ 

c  ° 

q    -j 

c§ 

C  <u 

g+j 

£« 

•wfa 

O  Q 

o 

o  S 

o 

Q  *^ 

O  !2 

0-« 

o  S 

o  i_ 

Q.  O 

• 

•*-* 

• 

3 

P 

. 

2 

y 

S 

c  ^ 

c 

"o  to 

51 

O  w 

-2S 

|M 

^M 

ffi 

o  to 

D+J 

|6 

SiS 

!» 

a) 
in 

f> 

f> 

>> 

>> 

t> 

g 

t> 

t> 

f> 

fa 

*^ 

•^ 

Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No  |Aye|No| 


* 

16 

0 

1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

14 

0 

3 

0 

* 

0 

* 

0$ 

* 

6 

8 

3 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

12 

1 

4 

0 

* 

* 

* 

0 

10 

2 

5 

0 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

5 

6 

6 

• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

(1 

10 

3 

4 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

16 

0 

1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

0 

5 

0 

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

e 

17 

7 

0 
9 

0 
1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

14 

1 

2 

0 

* 

* 

6 

3 

8 

0 

0 

* 

41 

* 

0 

* 

0 

8 

6 

3 

* 

* 

* 

* 

10 

0 

7 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

D 

OS 

8 

5 

4 

0 

* 

* 

0 

6 

5 

6 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

13 

2 

2 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

3 

1 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

3 

10 

4 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

2 

3 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

7 

8 

2 

* 

* 

* 

* 

8 

1 

8 

0 

* 

0 

4 

4 

9 

0 

* 

6' 

0 

5 

7 

5 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

10 

4 

3 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

11 

3 

3 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

4 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

11 

4 

2 

. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

1 

4 

* 

n 

* 

* 

* 

n 

12 

3 

2 

0 

0 

* 

* 

0 

0 

6 

6 

5 

0 

* 

-» 

9 

3 

5 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

(» 

14 

1 

2 

* 

* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

0 

8 

7 

2 

0 

* 

* 

* 

6 

6 

5 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

4 

* 

* 

* 

9 

2 

6 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

16 

0 

1 

"1 

17 

?.?, 

n 

20 

7 

26 

1 

28 

•A 

25 

0 

24 

5 

16 

a 

20 

16 

400 

131 

149 

19 

19 

27 

0 

26 

E 

29 

0 

29 

8 

32 

0 

29 

2 

27 

0 

27 

10 

469 

99 

112 

40  J36  |49  |  0  |46  |12  ]55   |  1  |57  |  6  J57  |  0  |53   |  7  |43  |   2  |47  [26  |  869  |  230 
Vote  O — t  Killingsworth  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  Q — §  Polsley  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  Progressive  Policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


Table  III— Records  of  Senators 

Dealing  with  Social  Evil,  Gambling, 


c 

gi 

o 

CO 

grf 

fee 

§aj 

rj 

<u  g 

0) 

-M      ^ 

^-  •—   > 

2   » 

FOR   KEY 
SEE 
PAGE    XIV 
OF 
APPENDIX. 

Ctf" 

.0     . 

C  0 

dO 
2 

K 

1 
a 

m 
aa    • 
.2 

*wS 

S3 

X 

o   . 

on  Morgens 
i  ti-Gambl 
1,  A.  B.  1581 

a 

o     S 

0)  O 

10  3  1) 

-2  3 

-2nM 

•2<<S 

SQ/VJ 

o  "^ 

pA9 

o^ 

O  " 

O    '  ^ 

O       ^* 

> 

> 

> 

t* 

> 

Senators 


|Aye  |  Mo  [Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  JAye  |  No 


Anderson    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Avey  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Beban  

0 

o 

o 

o 

Benson  

* 

* 

* 

* 

Birdsall    

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

Boynton  

o 

o 

o 

o 

* 

* 

Breed    

* 

o 

n 

o 

* 

* 

Brown    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Bryant  

0 

0 

0 

o 

* 

o 

Butler   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

CamineTtl    x. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Campbell    

* 

o 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

o 

o 

Cassidy    

0 

0 

0 

Cogswell  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Cohn   

0 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Curtin  

* 

0 

n 

0 

* 

* 

Finn    

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

Flint   

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

Gates    

* 

* 

n 

n 

* 

» 

Gerdes    

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

Grant    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Hans  

0 

0 

n 

0 

* 

Hewitt   

* 

* 

Jones    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Jullliard  

0 

0 

n 

n 

* 

* 

Kehoe    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Larklns    

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Lyon   

* 

0 

0 

0 

Mott    

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

Owens    

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

Regan    

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Rush  

* 

0 

Sanford    

* 

0 

* 

* 

Shanahan   

* 

* 

* 

n 

* 

* 

Strobridge   

* 

0 

n 

* 

Thompson  

* 

* 

* 

Tyrrell    

* 

n 

* 

Wright  

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Totals 


29  |  11  |  13  |  18  |  21  |  10  |  14  |  23  |  23  |    1  |  27  ]  3 


Character  "*"  Indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 
Vote  H — t  Brown  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  that  he 
might  move  reconsideration. 


Session  1913,  on  Thirteen  Votes 


Saloon  Regulation.  Etc. 


I        M 


TOTALS. 


4JCO 

J.S 

ttl    • 

c 

S° 

W 

SS 
-E 

•7  . 

«J 

£  ° 

is 

.  0> 

02 

*f  VH 

"£  CQ 

O 

H 

1 

^4  ^ 

13 

rH  03 

•<JCQ 

cj?  . 

"a-*-1 
^C 
o> 

d+» 

01 

03      2 

C 

B 
g 

MJS 

A 
o 

§1 

5  <3 
o4-1 

c- 

°s« 

ote  on 
Amendm 
B.  735. 

£2 

0lO    . 
Co 

^S^ 

•w  ~    • 
0<& 

Oi  oJ  o 

o 

as 

O-H 

C       "5 
0  03  0 

or  such 
Policies. 

gainst  st 
Policies. 

bsent. 

>• 

t> 

t* 

t> 

> 

fe 

•< 

<J 

Aye 

No  |Aye 

No  |Aye 

No  |Aye 

No|A 

No  |Aye  |  No  |Aye 

No|     * 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

9 

3 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

11 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

4 

7 

2 

0 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

7 

6 

0 

* 

* 

•  * 

* 

* 

9 

3 

1 

* 

*t 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

11 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

8 

0 

5 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

7 

3 

3 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

11 

0 

2 

* 

0 

0 

0 

1 

5 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

7 

5 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

11 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

7 

3 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

8 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

3 

10 

0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

5 

7 

1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

0 

4 

8 

1 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

1 

0 

* 

0 

* 

0 

0 

4 

7 

2 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

8 

0 

5 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

0 

1 

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

0 

5 

S 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

13 

0 

0 

0 

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

7 

5 

1 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

6 

5 

2 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

12 

1 

0 

* 

0 

* 

0 

* 

6 

5 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

12 

0 

0 

* 

* 

* 

5 

2 

6 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

8 

2 

3 

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

5 

5 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

10 

0 

3 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

5 

5 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

4 

9 

0 

11  |  17  |  14  |  20  |  17  |  13  |  24  |  38  |    0  |  15  |  24  |  29   |    9  (289  |158  |  73 
Character  "*"  indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 
Vote   H — t  Brown   changed   his  vote   from    "Aye"    to    "No"    that   he 
might  move  reconsideration. 


Table  IV— Record  of  Assemblymen 

Dealing  with  Social  Evil,  Gambling, 


FOR   KEY 
SEE 
PAGE    XV 
OF 
APPENDIX. 

A       |       B 

C 

D 

E       |       F 

Vote  on  Amendment  to 
A.  B.  353,  Redlight 
Abatement. 

Vote  on  A.  B.  353,  Red- 
light  Abatement. 

0 

w 

<r> 

iH 

PQ 

•^d 

gm 

2g 

O  M 

t>  3 

§ 

4-»  ^* 
5J 

ijfc 

E 

Second  Vote  on  A.  B.  1620, 
Ferguson  Bill. 

Vote  on  A.  B.  1581,  Mor- 
genstern  Anti-Gambling 
Bill. 

o  . 

$2 

to  03 
jjW 

&* 

We 

fcS 

~  s» 

13  Q 

u« 

e  " 
g« 

<D  3 

|« 

Assemblymen.        |Aye 

No  (Aye     No  (Aye     No 

Aye 

No 

Aye     No  |Aye     No 

Alexander  

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

Ambrose    

Bagby   

Beck   

Benedict    

Bloodgood   

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

• 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

Bohnett  

Bowman  

Bradford   

Brown    

Bush   

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

Byrnes   

Canepa  

Gary    

Chandler  

Clark,  Wm.  C  

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

« 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

0 

0 

0 

Clarke,  Geo.  A  

Collins    

Cram     

Dower  

Ellis     

* 
* 

ot 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

Emmons  

Farwell    

Ferguson   

Finnegan    

Fish     

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

Fitzgerald  

Ford    

Gabbert    

Gates    

Gelder    

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

Green   

Griffin    

Guiberson  

Guill    

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

Hinkle    

Johnson,   G.   H  
Johnston,  T.  D  

Totals 


4  |  35  |  35  |    5  |  13  |  21  |  19  |  19  |  31  |    4  |  15  |20 


Vote  C  —  t  Ferguson  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  to 
secure  reconsideration. 

Vote  H  —  t  Brown  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  to  secure 
reconsideration. 

Character  "*"  indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 

Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 


Session  1913,  on  Thirteen  Votes 

Saloon  Regulation,  Etc. 


I        H | 


TOTALS. 


o 

j*. 

^ 

p 

E>»J 

M 

0 

•*•*    . 

3 

3 

"3 

<u— 

_c   . 

*^ 

|S 

g| 

£5 

*j" 

3 

1° 

c 

0) 

—  4) 

to 

OS 

C*2  M 

PQ  g 

s 

"§§ 

*"*£ 

^£ 

M 
rH  fcfl 

I 

°"c 

•o 

SN 

C<e 

^  »r? 

.  c 

2  ^ 

1-1  OJ 

8 

st 

o"? 

<D  <D 

«s 

o 

w§ 

S 

3 

**Q 

0)_N 

o-H 

«| 

£"-3 

^ 

J3  K 

3 

K  BJ 

fit, 

O  0) 

£j! 

Ck 

"^i 

g? 

ojl. 

flri 

CO 

c^ 

o   . 

ailj 

—  — 

c 

®  3 

0« 

13 

8^ 

33 

£•«<« 

|M 

|ai 

0^ 

^  Qj 

M 
J3 

fc 

02 

> 

< 

> 

> 

fc 

2 

Aye|  No  jAye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |  Aye|No  |Aye  |No  |Aye  |No  |Aye  |No 


0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

6 
13 
3 
3 

12 

0 
0 
6 
8 
1 

7 
0 
4 
2 
0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 

0 
0 

*t 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

13 
11 
6 
4 
13 

0 
1 
7 
g 
0 

0 
1 
0 
2 
0 

0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

* 

3 
5 
1 
9 
5 

9 
8 
11 
2 
1 

1 
0 

1 
2 
7 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

13 
10 
0 
11 
3 

0 
3 
11 
0 
9 

0 
0 
2 
2 
1 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

• 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

13 
9 
9 
2 

10 

0 
3 
3 
11 
1 

0 
1 
1 
0 
2 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

• 

8 
2 
0 
12 
9 

0 
4 
11 
1 
2 

5 

7 
2 
0 
2 

0 
0 
0 

* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

* 

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 

* 

* 
* 

t 

0 
0 
0 

5 
5 
4 

8 
10 

7 
7 
6 
0 
3 

1 
1 

2 
5 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

• 

* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 

5 
13 
6 
8 
5 

8 
0 
7 
5 
8 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

21 

15 

11 

22 

21 

18  |  25 

8  |  15  |17 

26 

5  |  18 

16J287  |172 

61 

_ 

Vote   C — t  Ferguson   changed   his   vote   from   "Aye"    to    "No"    to 
secure  reconsideration. 

Vote  H — t  Brown  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  to  secure 
reconsideration. 

Character  "*"  indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 
(Continued  on  Next  Page.) 


Table  IV  Concluded-Records  of  Assemblymen 


Dealing  with  Social  Evil,  Gambling, 


A        |       8 

C       |       D 

E       1       F 

o*J 
JO 

•d 

o 

M 

o 

i  M 

o   . 

~S 

Q 

M 

CD 

CO 

tH 

S3 

4)2 

8j2 

ffl 

P9 

J 

MPQ 
o  aj 

FOR    KEY 

£  <D 

So 

• 

°°o 

SEE 

"cOn 

M  <u 

<jrt- 

^j 

tH  J^ 

<M    ° 

PAGE    XV 

01 

W  § 

gw 

og 

fjjfl 

° 

OF 
APPENDIX. 

cMf 

jl 

O 
O  W 

ll 

c  * 

is 

cfe 

°PQ+j 

O+j 

^  t? 

*o  tm 

o^ 

°c 

• 

5§ 

o  <u 

-§l 

:  D 

> 

>" 

E 

02 

> 

1> 

Assemblymen.         |Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |  Aye|  -No  [Aye  |  No  [Aye  |  No 


Johnstone,  W.  A... 
Judson   

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
• 

Killingsworth    
Kingsley    

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

0 

* 

• 

0 

Kuck  

* 

* 

* 

0 

0 

Libby    

0 

* 

0 

n 

0 

McCarthy    

o 

0 

n 

0 

* 

McDonald    

o 

0 

0 

• 

n 

0 

Moorhouse    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Morgenstern    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Mouser    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Murray  

* 

0 

n 

Nelson    

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

Nolan    

0 

0 

0 

0 

n 

n 

Palmer  

* 

* 

0 

* 

Peairs   

* 

* 

* 

* 

Polsley  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Richardson  

o 

0 

0 

* 

0 

Roberts    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Ryan  

0 

0 

0 

0 

Schmitt    . 

0 

n 

n 

0 

n 

1) 

Scott  

0 

* 

n 

0 

* 

n 

Shannon    

0 

n 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Shartel    

* 

* 

0 

Shearer  

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Simpson  

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

It 

Slater  

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Smith    

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Strine  

* 

* 

* 

* 

Stuckenbruck    

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Q 

Sutherland           .... 

* 

0 

o 

* 

* 

Tulloch    

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wall    

* 

* 

o 

o 

* 

o 

Walsh    

0 

0 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Weisel    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

M^eldon    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

n 

White   

n 

n 

n 

o 

n 

it 

^Voodley    

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wyllie  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Young   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Totals    

11 

?8 

5? 

1? 

18 

13 

n 

17 

?5 

5 

13 

1S 

Brought  forward. 

4 

35 

35 

5 

13 

21 

19 

19 

31 

4 

15 

20 

Grand    Totals |  15  |  63  |  62  |  17  |  31  |  34  |  40  |  36  |  56  |    9  |  28  |38 

Vote    J — §  Schmitt    changed    his    vote    from    "No"    to    "Aye"    to 
secure  reconsideration. 

Character  "*"  indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 


Session  1913,  on  Thirteen  Votes 

Saloon  Regulation,  Etc. 


I        H 


M      j      TOTALS. 


o 

^ 

^ 

S 

(-s- 

to- 

O 

. 

rt 

^ 

'3 

13  ^H 

^  . 

-4->3 

Sd 

Sd 

£M 

.2?H 

«J 

v® 

03ffl 

|m 

-S 

3 

tf  ° 

c 

03 

6  S 

<J+J 

cq^ 

^  § 

S 

SN 

§| 

c  to 
oo 

03  Q) 

rH  bfl 
«l 

V! 
^  O 

^1 

a 

03 

S 

3 

§» 

V  N 

II 

II 

-O.J!, 

C+-1 

4J 

c9 

O.J.* 

K 

CO 

o  . 

m 

such 
Iicies. 

D 

«  oj 

to  o 

—  ™ 

'S 

gm 

|I 

0 

0H 

01  to  .  . 

d)  bjo 

<D    . 

'oW 

s£ 

0) 
en 

^3 

> 

E 

03 

!> 

«| 

> 

t> 

£ 

2 

<J 

Aye|  No  |Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No  |  Aye|No  |Aye  |No  |Aye  |No  |Aye  |No 


0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

.* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
*  . 

* 
* 

11 
11 
2 
9 
9 

1 

2 
10 

1 
3 

1 

0 
1 
3 
1 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 
*  , 

4 
1 
0 
11 
9 

8 
11 
9 
0 
0 

1 
1 

4 
2 
4 

0 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 

* 

11 
4 
8 
0 
5 

0 
3 
4 
10 
3 

2 
6 
1 
3 
5 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 

* 

* 

10 
13 
1 
13 
0 

0 
0 
9 
0 
9 

3 

0 
3 

0 

4 

0 

0 
0 

* 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

o§ 

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 

0 
3 

2 
4 
4 

12 
8 
10 
5 

5 

1 
2 
1 
4 
4 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

* 

7 
5 
7 
10 
6 

6 
6 
4 
0 
6 

0 
2 
2 
3 
1 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

o 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

8 
9 
3 
0 
10 

2 
0 
7 
10 
3 

3 
4 
3 
3 
0 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 
* 

7 
2 
10 
11 
13 

5 
9 
1 
0 
0 

1 
2 
2 
2 
0 

18  1  17 
21  |15 

12 
11 

17 

22 

18 
21 

16  I  20 
18  |  25 

5 

8 

14  118 
15  |17 

29 
26 

6 
5 

20 
18 

171253 

16|287 

182 
172 

85 
61 

39  |  32  |  23  |  39  |  39  |  34  |  45  |13  |  29  |35  |  55 


38  |  33|540  |354  |146 


Vote    J  —  §  Schmitt    changed    his    vote    from    "No"    to    "Aye"    to 
secure  reconsideration. 

Character  "*"  indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies. 
Character  "0"  indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 


Table  V— Records  (Nineteen  Votes)  of 

|A|B|C|D|E|F|Q|H     f~T~ 


ri-ra= 

ri-M=j 

ri^s 

us  • 

rig 

ric 

-<+-< 

°"i 

Orirj 

•  CS 

02  <U 

•  c« 

w  • 

•  Ci5 

W  1) 

05  o 

t- 

*  u 

A<s 

Sj5 

FOR   KEY 
SEE 

oSg 

*^^  ^ 

oHg 

S§1 

o5°3 
mm 

C  3 
Op 

0  3 

WES 

0^ 

.S  02 

^-0^ 

£  cC 

bfi  <i>  1) 

PAGE    XVI 
OF 
APPENDIX. 

mendment 
905,  Woi 
Compensa 

mendment 
905,  Woi 
Compensa 

mendment 
905,  Woi 
Compensa 

ote  on  S 
Workmen" 
pensation 

oS 
+j 

iS 

+JM 
O   ' 

1 

<*     a 
s«c 
c£« 

°«S 
a)££ 

SUE 

C  "t*  **"* 
O  V 

ote  on  Wri 
tion  to  am 
642,  Cons 

2 

2 

2 

9* 

fe 

TO 

j> 

>• 

> 

Senators         |Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No 


Anderson      

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Avey    

F 

A 

A 

A 

Beban   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Benson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Birdsall     

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

Boynton      

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Breed  

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Brown    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Bryant    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Butler    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Caminetti     
Campbell    

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

I 
F 

F* 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

Carr    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Cartwright    .... 
Cassidy    

A 

P 

A 

A 

A 

Cogswell     

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Cohn    

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

Curtin      

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Finn     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Flint     

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

Gates    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Gerdes     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Grant     

F 

F 

F 

Hans    

F 

F 

F 

Hewitt     

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Jones    

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Juilliard    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

Kehoe    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Lark  ins    

A 

F 

F 

| 

A 

A 

F 

Lyon     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Mott     

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Owens    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

\ 

Regan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Rush     

F 

F 

^ 

Sanford     

F 

F 

A 

Shanahan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

Strobridge    
Thompson     
Tyrrell     

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

Wright    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Totals |     6|22|     6|  20|     6|20|  30|    5|  15|  22|  18|22|  10|  16|  13|  16|  13|  18 

Vote  E — *  Caminetti  changed  his  vote  to  "No"  that  he  might  give 
notice  to  reconsider. 

Vote  N — t  Bryant  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  that  he 
might  give  notice  to  reconsider. 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 

Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor 
Lobby. 


Senators,  Session  1913,  on  Labor  Issues 


J|K|L|M1N|0|P 


TOTALS. 


•t 

0 

•*G 

^x 

0 

o« 

pqj, 

PQ-i 

ffl-i 

*.* 

3 

0 

M 

L0  O 

•<& 

8 

rH 

So 

•  •& 

ffi§ 

•_M 

i-\ 

o 

ffl 

«-s 

b-5 

BS 

pq 

0S 

OB 

2? 

K^ 

w* 

Vote  on  A. 
Conservati 

g 
t- 

,~*  OT 

C      _ 

C  0)     . 
0  g  C 

Vote  on  S. 
Picketing 

Vote  on  S. 
Regulating 
Sharks. 

Amendment 
466,  Women 
Hour  Bill. 

Amendment 
466,  Women 
Hour  Bill. 

Amendment 
466,  Women 
Hour  Bill. 

aim 
§1 

So 

For  policies  c 
Labor  Lob 

Against  polic 
of  Labor  L 

Absent. 

Aye|No|AyeiNo|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|  Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No{Aye|No| 


F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

9 
5 

16 

17 
7 

9 
6 
0 
2 
10 

1 
8 
3 
0 
2 

F 
F 
F 

F  1 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 
A 
Ft 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

7 
6 
10 
18 
12 

12 
11 
7 
0 

7 

0 
2 

2 
1 
0 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

A' 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

17 
10 
12 
3 
0 

0 
6 
7 
5 

2 

2 
3 
0 
11 

17 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

7 
6 
2 
18 
9 

11 
11 
11 
0 
7 

1 

2 
6 

1 
3 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

7 
15 
12 
7 
9 

8 
0 
0 
3 

7 

4 

4 
7 
9 
3 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

10 
8 
16 
10 
14 

5 
11 
2 
5 
0 

4 
0 
1 
4 
5 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

3 
0 
15 
6 
9 

11 
9 
0 
3 
2 

5 
10 
4 
10 

8 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

16 
6 
7 
15 
0 

1 
8 
12 
3 
19 

2 
5 
0 
1 
0 

28|    6|  21|13|     8|22|  27|    6|  171 18|    27j    3|  14|21|  13|  21|  10|  21|  17|  18|  376  |233  |151 

Vote  E — *  Caminetti  changed  his  vote  to  "No"  that  he  might  give 
notice  to  reconsider. 

Vote  N — t  Bryant  changed  his  vote  from  "Aye"  to  "No"  that  he 
might  give  notice  to  reconsider. 

Character   "F"    indicates   vote   for  policies   supported   by   Labor   Lobby. 

Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor 
Lobby. 


Table  VI— Records  of  Assemblymen 


|A|B|C|D|E|F|Q|H| 


10   ' 
o  C 

± 

s 

£ 

g 

O  ' 

i  C 

O1^ 

<M~ 

S 

OT  0) 

0  C 

ft; 

"3 

• 
c 

.H 

^® 

^2  ™ 

<0 

50 

PQ    ft 

&& 

n 

B 

CO          OJ 

•.S 

—  '  CO 

«• 

PQ     . 

2 

•*^ 

^r 

O 

S  fl)  .2; 

^ 

^ 

FOR    KEY 

02  0 

.  TO 

in  tn 

5  o5 

oo'cd 

^^  C 

£2^ 

§  >>£ 

'S 

<JM 

SEE 

os  C 

1-1  CO 

^§  O 

coffl 

.  £*  <1J 

<M 

^  ^,  3 

<J  rH 

PAGE    XVIII 
OF 
APPENDIX. 

ote  to  Amend 
Workmen's 
sation. 

.  ft 

MS 
O 

aid 

§5 

4)  (C 

•*->  C 

o  B 

ote  on  A.  B. 
Contempt  Ca 

C 

pqfa 

e.3 

o-S 

O£ 

ote  on  S.  B 
Regulate  Pr 
ployment  Ag 

.    O 

c    S 

O  ctf  co 

.  a/1-} 

.    l-c    O 

C 

irst  vote  on 
Conservation 

scond  Vote  or 
Conservation 

>• 

pj 

> 

> 

t> 

> 

t> 

!> 

fa 

02 

Assemblymen.         |Aye  |No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye  |No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye  |No|Aye|No 


Alexander  

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Ambrose    

K 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Bagby   

A 

F 

A 

A 

Beck   

F 

F 

F 

N 

F 

F 

A 

Benedict    

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Bloodgood    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Bohnett     

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Bowman    

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Bradford    

4 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Brown    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Bush    

F' 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Byrnes    

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Canepa    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gary    

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Chandler    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Clark    Wm    C  

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Clarke    Geo    A  

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Collins    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Cram   

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

Dower  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Ellis   

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Emmons    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Farwell    

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Ferguson     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Finnegan   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Fish   

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Fitzgerald    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Ford  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Gabbert  

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gates    

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gelder    

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

Green    

F 

| 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Griffin  

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

Guiberson   

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Guill    

F 

F 

1 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 

Hayes    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

Hinkle    

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Inman     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

Johnson,  G.  H  
Johnston,   T.  D  

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

Totals    |   5  |25|26  |  4 121  |  6|22  |  5|14  |21|19  |  4J24  |  0|29  |  OJ19    |18|23  |16 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Vote  S — §  Inman  and  Walsh  voted  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration. 


Session  1913,  on  Labor  Issues 


K      JL|M|N|0|P|Q|R|S|T| 


TOTALS. 


o 

C 

<D 

6 

4J    M 

J3  O 

o  c!j 

J 

O_ra 

"^"c 

O   M 

*"  C 

S  • 

in 

t" 

U5 
t- 

o  aj 

Q) 

0 

bofi 

0) 

<U 

°3 

t^  ^ 

6 

W  . 

t, 

c£ 

cS 

^5 

pq 

PQ 

r* 

o  o 

Ol  O 

•S 

o 
t- 

t-^O 

*>< 

o 
to  >, 

1^3 

tc'I-i 

^jj 

<ij 

"o 

J 

pq 

"*K 

o  d 

sfi 

t) 

w£  . 

03 

1^ 

I-"" 

Tj<    O 

§S 

c 

^-i  K". 
°^ 

en-0 

BJ     . 

<u  >. 

s§ 

sr? 

^ 

J 

•  ^od 

^2 

^   j2 

^^ffi 

aj_bc 

®w 

'o 

13 

£3 

o  Retu: 
Judicia 

o  . 
<t>5 

O  4> 
4)  3 

o73 

g^ffl 

«2o 

0>X: 

12 

fi: 

'o  * 

>1 

scond  \ 
Cemeni 

§l 
$3 

gainst 
Labor 

bsent. 

p< 

!> 

> 

!> 

> 

!> 

> 

> 

E 

ra 

| 

2 

<< 

Aye|Xo|Aye|N-,|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|Xo|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No| 


A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
P 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 
A 
A 

A 
A 
A 
A 
A 

8 
16 
4 
9 
12 

3 
2 
9 
6 

5 

9 
2 
7 
5 
3 

F 
F 
P 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

18 
15 
7 
11 
17 

0 
3 
10 

7 
2 

2 
2 
3 
2 
1 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

18 
14 
18 
7 
5 

1 
4 
0 
8 
3 

1 

2 
2 
5 
12 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

11 
11 

17 
6 
13 

3 
5 
2 
6 
3 

6 
4 
1 
8 
4 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

15 
11 
12 
18 
19 

3 

4 
4 
1 
0 

2 
5 
4 
1 
1 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

10 
12 
14 
14 
9 

4 
2 
2 
6 
8 

6 
6 

4 
0 
3 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

14 
10 
3 
1 
10 

1 
5 
9 
14 
6 

5 
5 
8 
5 
4 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

FS 
A 
A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

17 
13 
17 

7 
12 

3 
3 
1 
9 
5 

0 
4 
2 
4 
3 

11   I25J33  |  0|28  |  8|36  |  1 127  |  6|11  |25|    6   |25|26   |  4|14    |24|13  |23  |  475  |  172 
Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  Indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Vote  S — §  Inman  and  Walsh  voted  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
(Continued  on  Next  Page.) 


Table  VI  Concluded — Records  of 


I      A     |      B     |      C      j      D     |     E      |      F      |      G     |      H     | 


U5    ' 

•a  . 

3 

4-1 
§ 

1 

O   ' 

(B  C 

Cj3 

S3 

S 

cq" 

fflft 

^•2 

H 

^3 

m 

B 

CO         03 
1-1  4)  « 

.2 

'<§, 

w  • 

rij 

FOR    KEY 
SEE 

02*  ° 

.d 
10  tn 

S  c 

J~o5 

<x  A 

^-s 

Sdl 
.>§ 

^s 

1^1 

<^S 

PAGE    XVIII 
OF 
APPENDIX. 

ote  to  Amenc 
Workmen's 
sation. 

.  a 

we 

o 
asU 

—  s 

O  H 

ote  on  A.  B. 

Contempt  Ca 

O  o 

oS 

«.£? 

ote  on  S.  B 
Regulate  Pr 
ployment  Ag 

.  V 

c     o 
o  to*-1 

"o  eS  to 

.2o 

c  he  o 

irst  vote  on 
Conservation 

scond  Vote  or 
Conservation 

P* 

K* 

> 

f> 

>> 

> 

t> 

> 

h 

03 

Assemblymen.         |Aye  |No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye  |No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye  |Xo|Aye|No 


Johnstone,  W.  A.  .  . 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

Killingsworth    
Klngsley   

Kuck    

Lit>by    

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

McCarthy   

McDonald   

Morgenstern    

Mouser  

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

Nolan   

Palmer   

Peairs   

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

Polsley  

Richardson    

Roberts    

Ryan    

Schmitt    

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

A 
A 
A 

Scott         

Shannon    

Shartel    

Shearer    

Simpson   

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

Slater   

Smith    

Strine    

Stuckenbruck    

Sutherland    

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

Tulloch   

Wall         

Walsh   

Weisel    

Weldon   

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

White    

Woodley    

Wyllie    

Young    

Totals    

8  123129 
5  |25|26 

9122 
4J21 

3 

6 

24 
22 

2 
', 

16 
14 

Ifi 
21 

25 
19 

3 

4 

23 
24 

0 

n 

27 
29 

0 
0 

21 
19 

17 

IS 

21 
23 

14 
Ifi 

Brought  forward. 

Grand    Totals |13  |48|55  |13  |43  |  9 146  |  7|30  |37J44  |  7|47  |  0|56  |  0|40   |35|44  |30 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Vote  L — t  Killingsworth  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  R — J  Killingsworth  changed  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  S — |  Walsh  and  Inman  voted  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration. 


Assemblymen,  1913,  on  Labor  Issues 

K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S      |      T      |       TOTALS. 


o 

>> 

i 

i  n 

i  i 

O  j« 

O  10 

1 

10 

ITS' 

^ 

5 

i  o 

C    i 

g 

^"c 

S  • 

t- 

t- 

o  o5 

,<y 

o 

_M_C 

PH^ 

O 

«2 

o  ^ 

o  * 

fa 

w  . 

(i 

c  S 

c  S 

c>5 

PQ 

M 

wii 

. 

.e 

wg 

-  O 

~  •—  . 

0)  O 

0)  O 

<M 

o 

o 

O 

•  g 

t~ 

7-; 

i^!  ^* 

«>  >> 

FT5 

*o 

CO   3 

^ 

^4 

•  o 
<0 

eg 

m 

j| 

WN 

® 

«£  . 

0  3 

C      OQ 

0)    . 

Brf« 

•*  o 

.« 

w^ 

gd 

a 
°s 

°l 

.,  — 

J^ 

^g 

Return 
udiciary 

o   . 

^*« 

O  4) 
0*3 

.  d    • 

§|M 

!wi 

^51 

0    '? 

®    if 

02  ^f 

OQ 

II 

Sm 

o 

>% 

•82 

c  S 

O  <D 

13 
§1 

1 

"3S 

fcj 

•M  «- 

m  o 

"s 

S 

OQ 

0^ 

EH 

1 

> 

£ 

| 

> 

> 

> 

fa 

aJU 
K 

r° 
fa 

tU)M 

A 

Aye|Xo|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|Xo|    F 


A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
Af 
F 
F' 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A$ 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

13 
16 
4 
19 
12 

5 
1 
13 
0 
3 

?. 
3 
3 

1 
5 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

6 
13 

19 
14 

18 

7 
2 
0 
3 
0 

7 
5 
1 
3 
2 

A 
A 

F 
V 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

19 
4 
13 
11 
7 

1 
6 

2 
1 

7 

0 
10 
5 
8 
6 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

15 
8 
13 
12 
15 

1 
6 
1 
5 
0 

4 
6 
6 
3 
5 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

5 
18 
13 
12 
3 

8 
1 
4 
3 
8 

7 
1 
3 
5 
9 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

11 
14 
12 
10 
14 

7 
3 
4 
4 
4 

2 
3 
4 
6 
2 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

FS 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

9 
17 
14 
17 
19 

6 
1 
2 
0 
0 

5 
2 
4 
3 
1 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 

6 
10 
13 
5 

10 

8 
3 
4 
8 
5 

6 
7 
3 
7 
5 

9  119 
11  J2S 

35  1  1 
33  1  0 

26  1  9 

28  |  8 

34 
36 

0 

1 

26 

27 

5 

6 

8 
11 

26 

n 

5 
6 

22 
25 

27 
26 

! 

19 
14 

17 

24 

19 
13 

1!) 
23 

483  1  147  1  170 
475  1  172  1  153 

20  |44|68  |  1|54   |17|70  |  1 153   |11|19  |51|11  |47|53  |  5|33    |41|32  |42  |  958  |  319  |  323 
Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  Labor  Lobby. 
Vote  L — t  Killingsworth  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  R — J  Killingsworth  changed  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 
Vote  S — §  Walsh  and  Inman  voted  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration. 


Table  VII — Records  of  Senators, 


1     A 

B      |      C      |     D      |      B      |      F      |     G 

«°"«j 

o*» 

o 

CO    QJ 

"cc 

C<=> 

oJ50' 

FOR    KEY 
SEE 

S  c« 

iH   O 

n'-g 

5 

2  S 

£| 

sl 

j5 

• 

I 
9 

jp 

IO  ^_j 

«  ri 

nendme 
:  Conse 
.  10. 

O»H 

2w 

o 

s» 

Sai 

PAGE    XX 

<JO 

0)  O 

<J)X! 

•5  °" 

J?— 

K  j 

w 

bo 

OF 

C5 

•0  C 

c  s 

a  S0^ 

cffl 

gffl 

APPENDIX. 

"d 

c_o 

o  o 

°'O"c 

°<!^H- 

°-l-> 

°  >. 

(U  <D 

M  "^  ^ 

S? 

o>  o>  a) 

0}       ^ 

(U    C 

oj  Sit 

|W 

c-32 

|«6 

|2CQ 

"o  « 

o> 

Senators. 


|Aye|  No  |Aye|  No  |Aye  |  No|Aye|  No|Aye|  No|Aye|  No|Aye|No 


Anderson   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Avey    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Beban    

A 

A 

B 

F 

F 

Benson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Birdsall    

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

Boynton   

1 

A 

A 

I 

K 

F 

Breed    

A 

A 

F 

P 

F 

F 

Brown   

F 

FJ 

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

Bryant  

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Butler   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Caminetti    

F 

F 

F 

Campbell    

F 

F 

A 

F 

Carr  

F 

F 

p 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Cartwrlght  

A 

A 

Cassidy    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Cogswell    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Cohn   

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Curtin   

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Finn    

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Flint    

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Gates  

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gerdes    

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Grant   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Hans  

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Hewitt   

F 

F 

F 

F 

Jones  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Juilliard    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Kehoe   

F 

F 

f 

F 

P 

F 

L/arkins    

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

Lyon    

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Mott    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Owens    

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Regan    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Rush   

F 

F 

F 

F 

Sanford    

F 

F 

F 

F 

Shanahan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

p 

F 

Strobridge   

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

Thompson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Tyrrell    

A 

F 

A 

F 

Wright    

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Totals  |  26  |  7  |  13  1 18  |  21  [10  |  29  1 11  |  13  |24  |  38  [  0  |  21  |   0 


Character  "F" 
Character  "A" 

*  Vote  I— Finn 
consideration. 


indicates  vote  for  policy  supported  by  women, 
indicates  vote  against  policy  supported  by  women, 
changed  his  vote  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  re- 


Session  1913,  Policies  Supported  by  Women 

H|I|J|K|L|M|N|O|       TOTALS. 


§ffl 

Sri 

'£•»!»«' 
§2^ 

§5*° 

D  J3 

£» 

•iri 

~2« 

Ss" 

Ss- 

•OHM 

g« 

"S3 

ol    • 

I<J 

5om 

1 

G 

c      . 

o  .2 

jtj  ^2 

-= 

«3   . 

a)—. 

.S-jj 

"S 

g"g 

£"c 

Og 

^  o   . 

sS 

3 

o 

m 

-  —   • 

H 

c 

^slj 

^11 

EHV.W 

g1 

cfl 

J3  m 

3 

03S 

Ot>  «- 

o>  *- 

c      • 

£-302 

5s 

03 

01     • 

v£ 

tn  ri 

+j 

£*ri 

|£s 

®o| 

<D       O 

£>  . 

(C^S 

O  01     . 

^1 

C~^ 

"3° 

a 

<o 

> 

>• 

> 

> 

> 

t> 

> 

£ 

•< 

•<! 

Aye 

.No 

Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye    No|Aye|  No  |Aye|  No  |Aye|No|  F       A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

13 

0 

2 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

14 

0 

1 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

7 

3 

5 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11 

0 

4 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

7 

6 

2 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

8 

6 

1 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

7 

4 

4 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

13 

0 

2 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

7 

5 

3 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

15 

0 

0 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

10 

1 

4 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

9 

3 

3 

F 

F 

A 

F 

10 

1 

4 

F 

F 

F 

3 

2 

10 

F 

2 

4 

9 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

9 

2 

4 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

8 

6 

1 

A 

A 

F 

5 

4 

6 

A* 

F 

F 

F 

6 

5 

4 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

9 

5 

1 

F 

F 

F 

F 

10 

1 

4 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11 

3 

1 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

12 

0 

3 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

8 

4 

3 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11 

0 

4 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

13 

0 

2 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

5 

6 

4 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

12 

0 

3 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

7 

5 

3 

F 

F 

F 

8 

2 

5 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

9 

3 

3 

F 

6 

2 

7 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

7 

6 

2 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

10 

1 

4 

F 

F 

F 

F 

8 

0 

7 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

13 

1 

1 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

7 

6 

2 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11 

2 

2 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

8 

2 

5 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

6 

7 

2 

23 

0  |  27  |    7  |  14  |21  |  13  |21 

28 

3 

24  |     0 

28  |     0 

23  |  0  |355  |108  |137 

Character  "F" 
Character  "A" 
*  Vote  I  —  Finn 
consideration. 


indicates  vote  for  policy  supported  by  women. 
indicates  vote  against  policy  supported  by  women. 
changed  his  vote  from  "No"  to  "Aye"  to  secure  re- 


Table VIII— Records  of  Assemblymen,  Session  1913 


I      G      | 


"—' 

-__. 

O-u 

, 

. 

bo 

2 

1  __J 

c^S 

C*j5 

§ 

^ 

03  73 

r-lpQ 

1-1  PQ 

bo 

i? 

!3S 

S 

'bc« 

c  — 

P-I 

ixj2 

£ 

4) 

FOR   KEY 
SEE 

1 

•flj  0 

B« 

I5 

I5 

«  C 

O      M 

o"S 

M  j 

•i 

"Vj 

.  4) 
CO   M 

PAGE    XXI 
OF 

O  4> 

BI 

||| 

+J 

"| 

.  to 

»g 

w| 

"^ 

APPENDIX. 

Is 

£5 

c  .S 

c^ 

0) 

£"3  • 

c"o 

rab 

«§ 

0+j 

"O 

o 

O--5 

d 

C  oj 

1 

S3 

C  4) 

0  tt) 

s* 

IB 

|^q 

•2.SP 

O  DO 

o>  bo 

Is 

•*->   ^ 

fa 

03 

> 

> 

<J 

> 

> 

t> 

Assemblymen.         [Aye|No  |Aye|No|Aye|No|Aye  |No  |  Aye  |  No  |  Aye  |  No  |  Aye  |  No  |  Aye  |  No 


F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Beck    

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Benedict    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Bloodgood    

F 

F 

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

F 

Bohnett    

Fv 

F 

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

Bowman    

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Bradford    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Brown    

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Bush    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Byrnes   

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Canepa    

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

Gary    

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Chandler    

F 

F 

F 

Clark     Wm.    C  

F 

F 

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

F 

Clarke  Geo.  A  

F 

F 

F 

P 

F 

F 

Collins    

\ 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Cram              

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Dower    

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

Ellis   
Emmons    

F 

•\ 

F 

P 

I'"1 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

Parwell    

F 

F 

F1 

F 

A 

F 

Ferguson    

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Finnegan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Fish     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Fitzgerald    

F 

F 

F 

Ford  

A 

A 

i 

A 

A 

Gabbert    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gates    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Gelder    

A 

A 

P 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Green    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Griffin     

A 

F 

F 

A 

Guiberson    

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Guill    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Hayes    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Hinkle    I 

!F 

F 

p 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Inman    

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Johnson,  G.  H  
Johnston,    T.    D  

. 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

P 

F 

Totals    |20|14|27|    9|    4|35|35|    5|  15  |  17|  26  |    5|  21  |    0|  22  |   0 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  women. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  women. 
Vote  A — t  Bohnett   voted    "No"    to   secure   reconsideration  of   the  vote  by 
which  the  bill  was  defeated. 
Vote  L — %  Gates  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 


on  Sixteen  Policies  Supported  by  Women 


1       |       J      |      K 

L       |       M      |       N       |      O       |         P       |       TOTALS. 

•J 

O  02 

o  <n 

bc_o 

Oo 

i 

•  •"= 

"5 

i 

C 

C  p 

C 

Is 

^<n 

2  o 

On  — 
m  o 
_CD 

3 
D1 

d 

O1 

R 

^s 

I  0-5 

-    :  = 

.  o> 

•*•  bo 

O»" 

«3 

i-T^ 

i-iCQ 

"cfeS 

'c^S 

S5 

C 

1-1 

c 

IS 

B& 

!„,-£ 

6.-S 

.  3 

pqo 

B'c 
•  £ 

.d 

.  0 

fflg 

01 

rj 

§"! 

c*ffi 

*4   jg 

«y 

i 

O  O> 

^-i 

C  0 

^s 

3 
n  m 

WJU 

o  £ 

|1 

®  .- 

«  .§ 

!ll 

«2fe 
•S>«2 

2  3 

o 

o 

3.0 

ro  o 

cs 

as 

g 

0) 
.0 

> 

>> 

> 

t> 

t> 

>• 

^ 

£ 

<5j 

•< 

Aye  |  No  | Aye  |  No  | Aye|  No  |  Aye  |  No  | Aye  |No  |Aye  |  No  |  Aye  |  No  | Aye  |  No 


A    | 


F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 

f 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

9 
14 
3 
9 

13 

0 
0 
7 
3 
1 

7 
2 
5 
4 
2 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

f 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

16 
12 
12 
10 
13 

0 
0 
3 
3 
3 

0 
4 

1 
3 
0 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

f 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

7 
11 
9 
12 
4 

4 
1 
3 
2 
1 

•  5 
4 
4 
2 
11 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

11 
11 
5 
9 
11 

1 

0 
5 
1 
2 

4 
5 
6 
6 
3 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

f 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

16 
10 
13 
11 
15 

0 
4 

1 

5 
0 

0 
2 
2 
0 
1 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

1 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

At 

K 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

. 

F 
F 

A 
A 

10 
6 
4 
15 
10 

0 

1 
6 
1 
3 

6 
9 
6 
0 
3 

F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

11 
10 

4 
5 
10 

3 
0 
3 
4 
3 

2 
6 
9 
7 
3 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

1 
. 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

f 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

1  , 

1 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

' 

F 

F 
F 
F 

; 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

14 
14 
13 
11 
10 

s 

3 

1 

1 
2 
2 
2 
5 

26  |    5 1  11  |  25 1    6  |  25|  24  [    Oj  27  [    0|  34  |  0  |  30  |    0  |  19  |    6   |  413  |     80  |  147 
Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  women. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  women. 
Vote  A — f  Bohnett  voted  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by 
which  the  bill  was  defeated. 

Vote  L. — t  Gates  voted  "Aye"  to  secure  reconsideration. 


Table  VIII  Concluded— Records  of  Assemblymen,  Ses 


co"-5 

co'-S 

O+J 

1 

o 

M 

01 

I  ,_; 

CQ  ~l 

MCI 

JH 

'O 

rH 

a  . 

Jj 

•22  is 

$K 

1-t" 

0* 

tf 

M'| 

.2rH 

J3 

^  _ 

goM 

Wo 
•*-» 

W  .£ 

r*^ 

^  *j 

PQ 

PH  2 

CO 

FOR   KEY 

j 

•  oj 

5  0) 

f/3+J 

«£ 

-   -• 

SEE 

<!« 

"^C 

|« 

.  G 

g 

S"c 

£3 

w 

o  3 

PAGE    XXI 
OF 

o  £ 

o? 

^ 

||| 

**  C 
*J  O 

aO 

.  in 

«g 

n| 

rX*® 

APPENDIX. 

fs 

O 

CMJ 

Offl* 

O4J 

9 

S<M 
0 

•d 

CM 

C  0 
o 

§« 

02 
gl 

*"  « 

cli 

o  * 

ri 

«"§! 

C  (B 
q;  bfl 

0) 

<V  C9 

<D"S 

5W 

opq 

'o<lj<lj 

"o« 

S*5! 

"o^j 

"oW 

"o-t 

6 

02 

> 

!> 

<J 

t> 

> 

> 

Assemblymen.          |Aye  |No  |  Aye  |  No  [Aye  [No  |Aye  |No  {Aye  |No  [Aye  [No  [Aye  |  No  |  Aye  |No 


Johnstone,  W.  A... 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

Killingsworth    

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Kuck    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Libby    

A 

j^ 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

McCarthy   

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

McDonald    

A 

A 

A 

F 

Moorhouse    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Morgenstern    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Mouser    
Murray    

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

Nelson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Nolan    

A 

A 

A 

A 

Palmer    

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Peairs    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Polsley          

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

\ 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Ryan     

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

Schmitt       

* 

A 

A 

A 

A 

> 

F 

Scott           

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A. 

F 

F 

Shartel     

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

Shearer    

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Simpson    
Slater    

F 

A 

P 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

Smith    

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Strine     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Stuckenbruck    

A 

F 

P 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Sutherland   

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

Tulloch     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Wall    

A 

F 

F 

A 

Walsh    

A 

A 

F 

Weisel    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Weldon   

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

White  

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

Woodley    

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

Wyllie  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Young    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Totals    

16 

18 

23 

11 

28 

27 

12 

14 

IN 

29 

n 

21 

0 

21 

0 

Brought  forward. 

20 

14 

27 

4 

36 

35 

^ 

15 

26 

B 

21 

0 

22 

0 

Grand    totals  

36 

82 

50 

21  1 

15 

83 

62 

17 

29 

?,',] 

55 

11 

42 

o 

43 

0 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote 


for  policies  supported  by  women, 
against  policies  supported  by  women. 


sion  1  9 1  3,  on  Sixteen  Policies  Supported  by  Women 


I    J 


TOTALS. 


PJ 

o  w 

o  in 

bfl_0 

0  0 

3 

eod 

d 

g 

g 

-—    ^ 

^  O 

3 

rS  ?Y^ 

3 

s 

"c  *" 

is 

"  o 

0* 

^H 

O1 

. 

v  £ 

v  g 

§ 

J^ 

c 

Ss 

So-j 

So-2 

"  ro 

**  bo 

oT 

pqS 

T-T|? 

T-(M 

l^m 

"c^S 

»H  <n 

c 

rH 

W 

."C 

'  <D 

a>     " 

<p 

3 

ffl"H 

._a 

.  0) 

•«§ 

W  bo 

s»s 

g    .  t. 

pqo 

'S 

PQ  2 

•*SHH 

C 

_£H 

.  «* 

•^  s 

^  CO 

•  t-» 

CQ 

fc 

j  § 

O 

*i  fe 

^,0 

^  O 

I 

E^  03 

^ 

c  2 

^ 

3   . 

c  e 

0  g 

§«s 

§w£ 

2 

C"o  4) 

°  2^ 

§|i 

fiS 

*^  >^ 
o  <u 
a 

*i 

Co 

0 

o> 

•gs 

30 

0!~ 

CD  TO 
-M.2 

w  o 

c 

U 

|«Q§ 

|aiH 

4)  O  <D 

f|o 

®  3 

il 

&fi 

OJ 
ID 

S 

> 

j> 

> 

>• 

h> 

!> 

t> 

>> 

fe 

r 

•^ 

Aye  |  No  JAye  |No  |Aye|  No  |  Aye  [No  [Aye  |No  |Aye  |No  |  Aye  |  No  |Aye  |  No    \    F 


F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

P 
P 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

13 
13 
6 
11 

10 

1 

0 
7 
3 
0 

2 
3 
2 
2 
6 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

P 
P 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

9 
6 
6 
13 
11 

4 
6 
4 
0 
0 

3 
4 
6 
3 
5 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

P 

F 
F 

F 
P 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

14 
8 
13 
4 
5 

0 

4 
2 
4 
6 

2 
4 
1 
8 
5 

F 

F 
F 

A 

P 

F 
F 

P 

P 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

11 
12 
6 

14 
7 

0 
1 
4 
0 
6 

5 
3 
6 
2 
3 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
P 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

2 
9 
9 

8 

7 

8 
2 
4 
2 
3 

6 
5 
3 
6 
6 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
P 

7^ 

P 

P 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

10 
13 
10 
13 

12 

2 
0 
1 

1 

2 

4 
3 

5 
2 

2 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

6 
14 
8 
5 
14 

5 
1 
3 
2 
0 

5 

1 
5 
9 
2 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

P 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

7 
6 
7 
8 
14 

3 
4 
2 
3 
1 

6 
6 
7 
5 
1 

20 
26 

7 
I 

8 
11 

W 

26 

5 
6 

22 

25 

18 
24 

1 
0 

25 
27 

0 

0 

30 
34 

0 
B 

26 
30 

l 
0 

24 
19 

6 
6 

374 
413 

101 
80 

165 
147 

46  |  12|  19  |  51j  11  |  47|  42 


52  |    0|  64  |  0  |  56  |   1  |  43  |  12  |  787  |  181 


Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  women. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  women. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     001  039  577     o 


-£92% 


